Issues: (i) whether the write-off of the advance given to M/s Gomti Foods & Spices Pvt. Ltd. was allowable as a business loss or revenue expenditure; (ii) whether the write-off of the advance given to Shri O.P. Parasrampuria was allowable as a business loss or revenue expenditure; (iii) whether the write-off of the amount given in the joint bid with M/s Sankalp Oil & Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. was allowable as a business loss or revenue expenditure.

Issue (i): whether the write-off of the advance given to M/s Gomti Foods & Spices Pvt. Ltd. was allowable as a business loss or revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The advance was paid in the course of the assessee's hotel business for a right to renovate and use premises as a restaurant. The arrangement failed after a fire at the assessee's hotel premises prevented performance of the agreement, and repeated efforts to recover the deposit resulted only in partial refund. The write-off was not treated as a bad debt satisfying the technical requirements of section 36, but as a loss arising in the ordinary course of business and falling within the revenue field.

Conclusion: The write-off was allowable as a business loss and the disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the write-off of the advance given to Shri O.P. Parasrampuria was allowable as a business loss or revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The amount was advanced on interest to an individual, while the assessee's business was running a hotel and not money-lending. No reliable evidence established that the advance was given for procurement of fabric or that it was incidental to the assessee's business operations. The transaction was treated as a personal/friendly loan rather than a business advance, and it did not qualify as expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of business.

Conclusion: The write-off was not allowable and the disallowance was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the write-off of the amount given in the joint bid with M/s Sankalp Oil & Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. was allowable as a business loss or revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The amount represented earnest money/fixed deposit given for participation in a bidding process intended to secure gas supply for the assessee's hotel business. The tender did not materialize and the deposit was forfeited. The loss was held to be incurred in the course of the assessee's business and distinguishable from a capital or non-business outlay, so the claim was considered allowable in the revenue field.

Conclusion: The write-off was allowable and the disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the Gomti Foods and Sankalp Oil write-offs, while the disallowance relating to Shri O.P. Parasrampuria was upheld, resulting in a mixed outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: A write-off of an amount advanced in the ordinary course of business may be allowed as a business loss or revenue expenditure even if it does not satisfy the technical conditions for bad debt, but a friendly loan or advance unconnected with the assessee's business remains non-deductible.

Issues: Whether the seized imported goods were liable to be provisionally released on conditions, while preserving the customs authorities' power to complete adjudication.

Analysis: The writ petition concerned only the seizure memo and a request for interim release of imported multifunctional devices. The Court followed its earlier orders in identical matters and held that provisional release could be granted subject to payment of the enhanced duty amount, timely quantification by Customs, furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to 10% of the value of the goods, and maintenance of transaction details if the goods were sold after release. The order also preserved the adjudicating authority's power to proceed independently in accordance with law and directed that the adjudication be unaffected by the conditional release.

Conclusion: The seizure was not sustained as an absolute bar to release, and provisional release of the goods was ordered on the stated conditions, in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration was justified on the ground that the assessee failed to establish actual movement of goods and the claim of input tax credit was supported only by e-way bills and fabricated invoices.

Analysis: The registration was cancelled after notice and opportunity of hearing when the assessee could not produce reliable evidence of physical movement of goods, such as transport documents, freight records, loading and unloading particulars, or any material showing genuine business activity commensurate with the claimed ITC. The material on record also indicated use of fabricated documents and fake invoices, and the authorities had already initiated proceedings under the relevant GST provisions against the suppliers and for blocking of ITC. In such circumstances, cancellation of registration under the statutory power governing contravention of the Act and Rules was held to be a permissible preventive measure.

Conclusion: The cancellation of GST registration was upheld and the challenge to the order failed.

Final Conclusion: The intra-court appeal did not succeed, and the order sustaining cancellation of registration remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee fails to prove genuine movement of goods and the ITC claim is found to rest on fabricated documents, cancellation of GST registration is sustainable as a preventive action under the GST regime.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to claim construction expenses and incremental expenses on accrual basis while recognising the corresponding income on receipt basis under its accounting method; (ii) Whether depreciation on cinematograph films in a sale and leaseback transaction could be disallowed on the ground that the transaction was not genuine or was a colourable device to evade tax.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to claim construction expenses and incremental expenses on accrual basis while recognising the corresponding income on receipt basis under its accounting method.

Analysis: The accounting treatment was examined in the light of the accepted commercial practice and the principle that an accrued liability connected with business receipts may be deducted even where the corresponding receipts are brought to tax on a different timing basis. The method adopted by the assessee was treated as permissible because the sale consideration of flats was credited at booking stage, while the estimated construction expenditure was debited as incurred liability, and the record did not show any specific defect in the estimation or any prohibition against such treatment.

Conclusion: The claim for construction expenses and incremental expenses was held allowable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether depreciation on cinematograph films in a sale and leaseback transaction could be disallowed on the ground that the transaction was not genuine or was a colourable device to evade tax.

Analysis: The transaction was treated as a recognised business arrangement supported by lease documentation and payment by cheque, with title in the films transferred to the assessee. Mere suspicion regarding the sequence of purchase and leaseback was held insufficient to disallow depreciation in the absence of material showing that the transaction was sham, nominal, or otherwise unlawful. The appellate findings were accepted as having correctly applied the law to the facts.

Conclusion: Depreciation on the cinematograph films was held allowable, and the allegation of a colourable device was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue, and the tax case appeals were dismissed, leaving the concurrent findings in favour of the assessee undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A permissible accounting method supported by accepted commercial practice cannot be disturbed absent a demonstrable defect, and depreciation cannot be denied on a genuine sale and leaseback transaction merely on suspicion without material evidence of sham or illegality.

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of books of account and estimation of net profit at 0.5% of turnover was justified.

Analysis: The assessment had proceeded on rejection of the books under section 145(3), but the appellate record showed that no specific defect in the accounts was established. The books were found to be correct and complete, with quantitative records, stock registers, and purchase and sales invoices maintained and verifiable, and the gross profit rate had improved over earlier years. The earlier year's profit estimate could not be mechanically applied because the factual basis for that year differed materially.

Conclusion: The rejection of the books was not upheld on the facts as found, and the net profit was directed to be estimated at 0.45% of turnover instead of 0.5%.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained partial relief on the rate of profit estimation, and the assessment was modified accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A profit estimate based on rejection of books cannot be sustained at an adopted rate from another year unless the factual foundation and defects in accounts are comparable, and the estimate must be aligned to the evidence on record.

Issues: Whether exporters of white refined sugar, whose exports were made with specific permission under the revised export policy, were entitled to RoDTEP benefit despite the notification classifying sugar as a restricted export.

Analysis: The entitlement to RoDTEP depended on the effect of the export policy and the implementing notifications governing sugar exports. Although the export of sugar was revised from free to restricted, the restriction was not absolute and exports were permitted on specific permission granted by the Directorate of Sugar. The scheme's ineligibility clause was aimed at goods that were truly restricted or prohibited, but the notifications read together showed that permitted exports of sugar under the prescribed quota and permission mechanism were not of that character. The Court also noted that identical controversy had already been decided by the High Court of Gujarat and that those orders had attained finality after dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to RoDTEP benefit, and denial of that benefit was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the respondents were directed to extend RoDTEP rebate where not granted, refund amounts recovered where benefit had been withdrawn, and no coercive recovery was to be undertaken in granted cases.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an export policy makes a commodity restricted only subject to specific permission and the exporter has complied with that permission regime, the export cannot be treated as a prohibited or ineligible export for denial of the export-linked rebate scheme.

Issues: Whether exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 25/2023-Cus is available on imports made under transferable DFIA where the goods are non-sensitive inputs, the imported goods fall within the description endorsed in the DFIA and SION, the goods are not covered by Appendix 4J, and no correlation between technical characteristics, quality and specifications of imported and exported goods is established.

Analysis: The ruling proceeded on the statutory framework governing advance rulings under the Customs Act, the DFIA scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy, and the exemption conditions in Notification No. 25/2023-Cus. It was noted that the notification grants exemption to materials imported against a valid DFIA issued under the relevant FTP paragraphs, provided the authorisation is produced, the SION particulars and export details are endorsed, and the imported goods remain within the description, value and quantity specified. The ruling further held that the requirement of correlating technical characteristics, quality and specifications applies only to inputs falling within the sensitive-items category under paragraph 4.29 of the FTP, as clarified by Circular No. 20/2025-Cus, and does not extend to other non-sensitive inputs. The conditions endorsed in the DFIA licence and SION norms were treated as binding, while actual user restrictions were held enforceable where incorporated in the authorisation framework.

Conclusion: Exemption is available for non-sensitive inputs under transferable DFIA without establishing correlation of technical characteristics, quality and specifications, provided the import conforms to the endorsed DFIA, relevant SION norms, Appendix 4J restrictions, and all applicable licence conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the DFIA scheme, correlation of technical characteristics, quality and specifications is required only for sensitive inputs specified in paragraph 4.29 of the FTP, while non-sensitive inputs are governed by the description, quantity and value endorsed in the authorisation and the conditions attached thereto.

Issues: (i) Whether the development rights in the subject land stood terminated by the letter dated 17.06.2009 and were given effect to; (ii) whether the earlier Supreme Court proceedings and the settlement recorded therein showed continuance of the development rights in favour of the corporate debtor; (iii) whether the appellant had earlier taken a contrary stand before the regulatory authorities regarding continuation of such rights; (iv) whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to examine the corporate debtor's development rights and refuse exclusion of the project from CIRP; and (v) whether the post-CIRP transfer of development rights to Parcela was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the development rights in the subject land stood terminated by the letter dated 17.06.2009 and were given effect to.

Analysis: The alleged termination letter was produced for the first time much later and was not shown to have been duly communicated or acted upon. The record also showed that the contractual clause on dishonour contemplated automatic termination, but the owners did not perform the corresponding obligation to refund the consideration after forfeiture. Subsequent conduct, including continued construction activity, was inconsistent with a concluded and acted-upon termination.

Conclusion: The development rights were not validly terminated by the letter dated 17.06.2009, and the letter was not given effect to.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier Supreme Court proceedings and the settlement recorded therein showed continuance of the development rights in favour of the corporate debtor.

Analysis: The settlement recorded in the earlier proceedings treated the development arrangement as subsisting. The clauses dealing with payment of licence dues, renewal of licences, and liberty to terminate agreements in specified contingencies proceeded on the basis that the agreements with the developer companies, including the corporate debtor, were still alive. The later contempt order also proceeded on the footing that the development rights had been divided and continued in the project structure.

Conclusion: The earlier Supreme Court proceedings did not establish termination of the development agreement; they reflected continuance of the corporate debtor's development rights.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant had earlier taken a contrary stand before the regulatory authorities regarding continuation of such rights.

Analysis: Before the Haryana RERA and the DTCP, the appellant had represented that development rights had been transferred to five developer companies and that it retained no further development rights in the project. Those statements were inconsistent with the later plea that the corporate debtor's rights had been terminated and ceased long before CIRP.

Conclusion: The appellant had earlier pleaded continuance of the development structure and divestment of its own interest, which was inconsistent with its later challenge.

Issue (iv): Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to examine the corporate debtor's development rights and refuse exclusion of the project from CIRP.

Analysis: Development rights over immovable property constitute property and an asset of the corporate debtor for insolvency purposes. Since the dispute went to the existence and protection of an insolvency asset, the Adjudicating Authority was competent to decide it. The challenge based on lack of jurisdiction therefore failed.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to decide the issue and to refuse exclusion of the project from CIRP.

Issue (v): Whether the post-CIRP transfer of development rights to Parcela was valid.

Analysis: Once CIRP had commenced, the moratorium restrained alienation or disposition of the corporate debtor's assets. The appellant could not, during the subsistence of CIRP and while its own exclusion application was pending, transfer the same development rights to a third party. Such transfer was contrary to the moratorium and lacked legal authority.

Conclusion: The transfer in favour of Parcela was void, without jurisdiction, and non est in law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed. The project land and related development rights remained part of the corporate debtor's insolvency estate, the exclusion plea was rejected, and the attempted third-party transfer could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Development rights created by agreement in favour of a corporate debtor are an insolvency asset protected by the moratorium, and they cannot be treated as terminated or transferred away unless termination is proved to have been effectively acted upon and lawful consequences followed.

Issues: Whether the operational creditor's Section 9 application was liable to be rejected on account of a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 8 and Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 requires the Adjudicating Authority to reject an operational creditor's application where notice of dispute has been received, unless the dispute is patently feeble, unsupported by evidence, spurious, hypothetical, or illusory. The record showed that the corporate debtor had raised concerns about defective and rusted goods before the demand notice, including written communications dated prior to the notice of demand. The exchange of emails also reflected the operational creditor's acknowledgment of quality issues and discussions regarding compensation, which supported the existence of a dispute antecedent to the demand notice. The contention that the third invoice was independent was not accepted, as the supplies arose from a single purchase order and the dispute concerning earlier consignments had a bearing on the later shipment. The Tribunal also declined to enter into a final adjudication on the contractual effect of CFR terms or the Sale of Goods Act in the summary insolvency forum.

Conclusion: The dispute was held to be real and pre-existing, the Section 9 application was liable to be rejected, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a Section 9 proceeding, once a notice of dispute discloses a plausible and evidence-backed pre-existing dispute, the Adjudicating Authority must reject the application without undertaking a merits adjudication, unless the dispute is shown to be spurious, hypothetical, or illusory.

Issues: Whether the appellant was ineligible to submit a resolution plan under Section 29A(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, on account of an existing prohibition imposed by SEBI and the compulsory delisting order.

Analysis: The appellant relied on the moratorium in the CIRP of the holding company and contended that the SEBI action should not be treated as a bar. The record, however, showed an existing order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the competent authority in compulsory delisting proceedings, which expressly prohibited the promoters and related entities from directly or indirectly accessing the securities market for ten years under the Delisting Regulations. Section 29A(f) attaches ineligibility where a person is prohibited by SEBI from trading in securities or accessing the securities market. The existence of that operative prohibition, not its correctness, was the relevant fact. The Adjudicating Authority was not required to test the validity of the SEBI order in the eligibility proceedings, particularly when the appellant had not challenged that order before the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The appellant was rightly held ineligible under Section 29A(f) and could not insist on consideration of a resolution plan.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the application declaring the appellant ineligible was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An existing and unchallenged SEBI prohibition on accessing the securities market constitutes ineligibility under Section 29A(f), and the insolvency forum need not re-adjudicate the validity of that prohibition while determining eligibility to submit a resolution plan.

Issues: Whether the order dropping the excise duty proceedings was sustainable in the face of the department's evidence of clandestine removal and undervaluation, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The record disclosed a detailed investigation supported by seized documents, statements, and corroborative material indicating clearance of goods at suppressed values, collection of unbilled consideration through indirect channels, and a broader modus operandi of undervaluation and clandestine removal. The reasoning adopted in the impugned order was found to have focused mainly on the method of duty computation and perceived shortcomings in the investigation, without comprehensively assessing the entire evidentiary record. The prior issuance of notices on related facts did not, by itself, preclude invocation of the extended period where the present notice rested on additional and distinct evidence. In these circumstances, the evidentiary appreciation in the impugned order was held to be incomplete and the factual and legal issues required reconsideration on the full material.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after comprehensive evaluation of all evidence, with all issues kept open.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax demand could be sustained solely on the basis of mismatch between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/Income-tax records without identification of the taxable service, recipient and consideration; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether service tax demand could be sustained solely on the basis of mismatch between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/Income-tax records without identification of the taxable service, recipient and consideration.

Analysis: Liability to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 is attracted only when there is taxable service and a determinable value of consideration. The record did not establish the specific taxable activity, the service recipient, or that the differential figures in income-tax records represented taxable consideration. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the mismatch between statutory returns and income-tax data could not, by itself, justify confirmation of tax demand or treat the reflected amounts as notional taxable income.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained merely on the basis of the mismatch, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period requires a positive element such as suppression or intent to evade. The record did not disclose material establishing such ingredients, and the demand was founded substantially on third-party income-tax data without proof that the appellant had rendered taxable services to identifiable recipients falling outside reverse charge or exemption coverage. On these facts, the foundation for extended limitation was absent.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the service tax demand and related penalties not being sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Service tax demand cannot be confirmed merely from a mismatch between ST-3 returns and income-tax data unless the Department establishes the taxable service, the recipient, and the consideration received, and extended limitation cannot be invoked without proof of suppression or intent to evade.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit on insurance services, including policies for raw materials, finished and semi-finished goods, stores, capital goods and related factory risks, was admissible as input service. (ii) Whether Cenvat credit on professional and consultancy services used for foreign exchange hedging was admissible as an input service. (iii) Whether credit on employee training related services and travel-related services was admissible as being used indirectly in relation to manufacture.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit on insurance services, including policies for raw materials, finished and semi-finished goods, stores, capital goods and related factory risks, was admissible as input service.

Analysis: The insurance services were found to have a nexus with the manufacturing business because they protected business assets and risks connected with production. The absence of contrary evidence from the department and the fact that the service tax had been paid by the appellant supported the claim. Such services were treated as falling within the expression of input service under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Conclusion: The credit on insurance services was held to be admissible and the disallowance was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit on professional and consultancy services used for foreign exchange hedging was admissible as an input service.

Analysis: The consultancy was engaged for hedging foreign exchange exposure arising from imports and exports in the course of business. Since the activity was undertaken to manage currency fluctuation risks affecting the manufacturing business, the services were treated as indirectly related to manufacture and business operations. They were therefore regarded as input services within Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Conclusion: The credit on professional and consultancy services for hedging was held to be admissible.

Issue (iii): Whether credit on employee training related services and travel-related services was admissible as being used indirectly in relation to manufacture.

Analysis: The employee training services were accepted as business-linked services intended to improve employee productivity and efficiency in the manufacturing environment. The services were treated as having an indirect nexus with manufacture and thus qualifying as input services. The appeal record also showed acceptance of credit for travel-related expenses connected with business use.

Conclusion: The credit on employee training related services was held to be admissible.

Final Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was set aside and the assessee succeeded on the disputed credit claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Services having a direct or indirect nexus with the manufacturing business, including insurance protection of business assets, foreign exchange hedging for business operations, and employee training that enhances productivity, qualify as input services for Cenvat credit.

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting could be sustained where the specific limb of Section 270A(9) was not identified.

Analysis: Penalty at the enhanced rate applicable to misreporting requires identification of the particular statutory instance of misreporting under Section 270A(9). Neither the penalty order nor its contents specified or made unambiguously discernible the particular default falling within any clause of Section 270A(9). The omission rendered the basis for treating the under-reported income as misreported income unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty levied under Section 270A for under-reporting in consequence of misreporting was deleted.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to reduction of the bank guarantee stipulated in the provisional release order despite the show-cause notice, the recorded statement admitting smuggling, and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The petitioners had already submitted a reply to the show-cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, together with the panchnama and the notice, indicated prima facie smuggling of the seized goods from Nepal. The goods were also found stored in bags bearing foreign-origin marks. In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of reducing the bank guarantee amount in the provisional release order.

Conclusion: The request for reduction of the bank guarantee was rejected and the petitions were dismissed.

Issues: Whether assessment orders lacking a Document Identification Number were liable to be set aside, and whether the assessment should be remanded with a condition of deposit of part of the disputed tax.

Analysis: The absence of a DIN was treated as an inherent defect in the impugned assessment orders. The Court followed its earlier view that such defect vitiates the orders, while also balancing the practical difficulties arising in GST administration and the need to protect the revenue interest. In that context, the Court held that delay-linked challenges of this kind could be entertained on the condition of depositing 20% of the disputed tax, and that the matter should go back to the assessing authority for fresh orders after giving due opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer, subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks.

Issues: Whether a penalty order passed under the GST detention and confiscation provisions could be sustained when the show cause notice was not followed by a reasoned adjudication order despite payment of the demanded amount under protest, and whether the proper officer was still bound to decide the reply and grant hearing before concluding the proceedings.

Analysis: The release order merely recorded payment of tax, penalty and fine and the release of the goods and conveyance, but it did not show that the show cause notice had been adjudicated or that the proceedings had been concluded by a reasoned order. Payment of the demanded amount did not dispense with the statutory duty to pass a speaking order. The reply to the show cause notice had to be considered, and the affected person had to be given an opportunity of personal hearing before a fresh decision under the detention provisions. The omission deprived the petitioner of the effective statutory remedy and was inconsistent with the requirement of fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty order was set aside. The proper officer was directed to pass a fresh reasoned order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 after granting personal hearing under Section 129(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and to complete the consequential formalities within the prescribed time.

Ratio Decidendi: Payment of the demanded tax or penalty under the GST detention provisions does not absolve the proper officer from passing a reasoned adjudication order after considering the reply and granting hearing.

Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution alleging large-scale GST evasion and fraudulent issuance of fake invoices and e-way bills, and whether the statutory provisions relating to undertrial detention and bail under BNSS warranted release.

Analysis: The allegations involved a structured GST evasion network using fake firms, bogus invoices, false transport entities, and electronic evidence, with material collected during investigation and statements under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prima facie indicating active participation. The Court treated the alleged conduct as a serious economic offence causing substantial loss to the public exchequer and applied the settled principle that economic offences stand on a different footing for bail. It further held that Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the custody-related safeguards in Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 do not confer an absolute right to bail, since release remains subject to judicial discretion, the nature of accusations, the risk of tampering, and the broader interests of justice. The period of custody by itself was held insufficient to justify enlargement on bail in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Bail was declined because the Court found a prima facie case of serious economic offence, viewed the alleged evasion as grave and organized, and held that the statutory custody provisions did not mandate release.

Final Conclusion: The bail application was rejected after the Court balanced personal liberty against the seriousness of the alleged GST evasion, the investigative material, and the need for a stricter approach to economic offences.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions involving grave economic offences under the GST law, statutory custody-based bail provisions do not create an indefeasible right to release, and bail remains a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on the nature of the accusations, the evidence, and the risk to the administration of justice.