Issues: Whether the writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite an efficacious statutory appeal where the challenge concerns jurisdiction, the reasonable period for issuance of a notice under Section 76, and factual issues arising from an adjudication order.

Analysis: The statutory appellate remedy is comprehensive and extends to examining the interpretation and application of the expression "reasonable period", which depends upon the facts of each case. The contention that only Section 76 applied to certain financial years, as well as the factual questions concerning alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit and non-payment of tax, can also be considered in appellate proceedings. The adjudication order was passed after considering the reply and affording an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained because the available statutory appeal can adjudicate the jurisdictional, limitation-related and factual questions raised by the petitioner.

Issues: Whether Extra Duty Deposit collected pending finalisation of assessment in related-party imports is customs duty subject to the limitation for refund.

Analysis: Extra Duty Deposit is a security collected pending final assessment or valuation verification, not a statutory customs levy. It remains available for appropriation only if an additional duty liability emerges. Where final assessment accepts the declared transaction value and finds no additional duty payable, the basis for retaining the deposit ceases. The refund limitation applicable to customs duty does not govern return of such a deposit.

Conclusion: Extra Duty Deposit is not customs duty, and its refund after final assessment is not barred by the limitation prescribed for refund of duty. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether Social Welfare Surcharge is payable where Basic Customs Duty is fully exempt on imports made against MEIS/SEIS duty credit scrips under the applicable customs exemption notifications.

Analysis: Social Welfare Surcharge is calculated as a percentage of the aggregate customs duties payable. The applicable departmental clarification provides that, where the aggregate customs duty is nil because of an exemption, the surcharge is also nil and cannot be calculated on a notional Basic Customs Duty. The prior ruling on identical imports and exemption notifications was applicable.

Conclusion: Social Welfare Surcharge is not payable when Basic Customs Duty is exempt under Notification No. 24/2015-Customs dated 08.04.2015 and Notification No. 25/2015-Customs dated 08.04.2015; the assessee is entitled to consequential refund relief.

Issues: (i) Whether restoration of funds dealt with during the CIRP could be directed under Sections 14 and 60(5) despite no adjudication of fraudulent or wrongful trading under Section 66; (ii) Whether the direction to forward the matter for action under Section 74 survived.

Issue (i): Whether restoration of funds dealt with during the CIRP could be directed under Sections 14 and 60(5) despite no adjudication of fraudulent or wrongful trading under Section 66.

Analysis: The application invoked Sections 66, 74 and 60(5) and specifically sought reversal and restoration of funds withdrawn in breach of the moratorium. Sections 14 and 17 independently preserve the corporate debtor's assets during CIRP by prohibiting dealings with those assets and vesting management in the resolution professional. Section 60(5), supplemented by Rule 11, authorises consequential directions concerning questions arising from CIRP. Restoration of funds is distinct from civil liability for fraudulent or wrongful trading under Section 66. The sale of the corporate debtor's mortgaged property during moratorium, despite refusal of permission to sell it, and the unsubstantiated explanation for withdrawals supported the restoration direction.

Conclusion: The restoration direction was validly made under Sections 14 and 60(5), independently of Section 66, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction to forward the matter for action under Section 74 survived.

Analysis: Section 74 was omitted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 with effect from 26 May 2026.

Conclusion: The direction concerning action under Section 74 had become infructuous.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor's insolvency estate remains protected through restoration of amounts dealt with in violation of the CIRP moratorium, while no action can proceed under the omitted provision.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction restoring corporate debtor assets improperly dealt with during moratorium is independently sustainable under Sections 14 and 60(5) and does not require proof of fraudulent or wrongful trading under Section 66.

Issues: (i) Whether purchasers of coal are liable to pay Clean Energy Cess payable on removal of coal; (ii) Whether purchasers of confiscated coal are liable to penalty in the absence of a finding that they knew or had reason to believe that the coal was liable to confiscation.

Issue (i): Whether purchasers of coal are liable to pay Clean Energy Cess payable on removal of coal.

Analysis: The Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010 impose registration and payment obligations upon the producer of specified goods, namely raw coal, raw lignite and raw peat, and require cess to be paid upon their removal. The appellants were tea-producing entities that had merely purchased coal and were not producers of coal.

Conclusion: The purchasers were not liable to pay Clean Energy Cess on the coal purchased by them. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether purchasers of confiscated coal are liable to penalty in the absence of a finding that they knew or had reason to believe that the coal was liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies to specified categories including producers, manufacturers, warehouse registrants and registered dealers, which did not include the appellants. Under Rule 26, penalty against a person dealing with goods liable to confiscation requires knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were so liable. No definite finding established such knowledge or reason to believe on the part of the appellants.

Conclusion: No penalty was payable by the purchasers for release of the confiscated coal, and the penalty amounts paid were required to be returned. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside insofar as they imposed penalty upon the purchasers for release of confiscated raw coal.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser dealing with excisable goods cannot be penalised under Rule 26 unless a finding establishes that the purchaser knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation; cess on removal of coal is payable by its producer, not its purchaser.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration and the consequential appellate order could stand where the cancellation was made without reasons or application of mind and without an effective opportunity to respond.

Analysis: Cancellation of registration adversely affects the right to carry on business and must satisfy the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The cancellation order did not disclose reasons warranting such action and reflected no application of mind. The petitioner was consequently entitled to submit a reply to the show-cause notice and have its defence considered after an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The cancellation and appellate orders were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee, with fresh adjudication to follow after receipt of the petitioner's reply and hearing.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail for alleged fraudulent availment and passing of input tax credit and wrongful export refunds under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime.

Analysis: The alleged offences carry a maximum sentence of five years and are triable by a Magistrate. Investigation had concluded, the complaint had been filed, no charge had been framed, and the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The applicant had remained in custody since 13 February 2026 and had no criminal antecedents. Pre-conviction detention is not punitive; personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a speedy trial require release unless exceptional circumstances justify continued custody. No material established a flight risk, likelihood of repetition of offences, intimidation of witnesses, or tampering with documentary and electronic evidence.

Conclusion: The applicant made out a case for release on bail upon appropriate safeguards.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail pending trial in a case alleging fraudulent availment of input tax credit and allied forgery offences.

Analysis: The period of the alleged incorrect input-tax-credit claims, the delay in lodging the FIR, the suo motu cancellation of GST registration against which an appeal remained pending, and the period of incarceration supported release on bail. The merits of the prosecution case were left untouched.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to bail pending trial.

Issues: (i) Whether the prohibition on sugar exports under the impugned notification was arbitrary, unconstitutional, or amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether pre-existing private export contracts, advance remittances, or allocated export quotas entitled the petitioners to export sugar despite the prohibition.

Issue (i): Whether the prohibition on sugar exports under the impugned notification was arbitrary, unconstitutional, or amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The export-policy change from restricted to prohibited was issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 following deliberations concerning a material decline in domestic sugar production, required closing stock, domestic availability, and price stability. The quota-allocation notifications under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the export-policy notification under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 operated in distinct statutory fields and for distinct purposes. A policy decision founded on public interest is not subject to judicial interference merely because it adversely affects commercial interests, absent arbitrariness, perversity, mala fides, or irrationality. The prohibition operated prospectively and constituted a reasonable restriction in view of the essential nature of sugar and the public-interest objective.

Conclusion: The export prohibition was a valid, non-arbitrary policy decision and did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; no writ interference was warranted. The finding is against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether pre-existing private export contracts, advance remittances, or allocated export quotas entitled the petitioners to export sugar despite the prohibition.

Analysis: Private bilateral contracts and receipt of advance payment could not override the export prohibition. Under the transitional arrangement in the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, post-restriction exports required an Irrevocable Commercial Letter of Credit existing before the restriction and its prescribed registration; the petitioners did not meet those requirements. Nor did they establish that their consignments had entered the physical export pipeline through the prescribed conditions or clearance for exportation. Export quotas allocated to sugar mills did not create vested rights in merchant exporters. The plea of promissory estoppel lacked supporting pleadings and material, while legitimate expectation is not an enforceable right capable of preventing a subsequent public-interest policy change. The rejection of the representation in the lead matter was also not challenged.

Conclusion: Pre-existing contracts, advance payments, and quota allocations did not confer an enforceable right to export sugar after the prohibition. The finding is against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The public-interest export-control regime prevailed over the petitioners' asserted commercial expectations; the petitioners may deal with retained sugar in the domestic market in accordance with applicable law.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid export-policy restriction adopted in supervening public interest cannot be defeated by private commercial arrangements, advance payments, quota allocations, or unenforceable expectations where the prescribed transitional and export-clearance conditions are not fulfilled.

Issues: (i) Whether an arbitral award-holder's claim, not lodged in the corporate debtor's CIRP and not included in the approved resolution plan, survives and permits continuation of the challenge to the award; (ii) Whether the amount deposited in court as security for stay of enforcement of the award is refundable to the corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether an arbitral award-holder's claim, not lodged in the corporate debtor's CIRP and not included in the approved resolution plan, survives and permits continuation of the challenge to the award.

Analysis: An amount awarded under an arbitral award constitutes a claim and the award-holder is a creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The approved resolution plan binds creditors, while claims not forming part of that plan stand extinguished. The award-holder did not submit its claim to the resolution professional; consequently, its claim was not incorporated in the approved plan. Continuance of the Section 34 challenge could not revive an extinguished claim.

Conclusion: The claim under the arbitral award stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, and the challenge to the award became academic, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount deposited in court as security for stay of enforcement of the award is refundable to the corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan.

Analysis: A court deposit required as a condition for stay secures the award amount pending adjudication and does not transfer ownership of the money to the award-holder. Release remains subject to the court's control and may be conditioned or modified. Such deposited funds remain assets of the corporate debtor, notwithstanding custody by the court. Since the underlying award claim was extinguished, no unconditional right to the secured deposit remained with the award-holder.

Conclusion: The deposited amount, together with accrued interest, is refundable to the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Approval of the resolution plan eliminated the unsubmitted award claim and preserved the corporate debtor's entitlement to funds deposited merely as security.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim under an arbitral award that is not submitted and incorporated in an approved resolution plan is extinguished, and money deposited in court solely as security for that award remains an asset of the corporate debtor.

Issues: Whether insolvency proceedings initiated on an operational creditor's application could continue after full settlement of the claim, discharge of the only other creditor's claim, and acknowledgment of a pre-existing dispute.

Analysis: The operational creditor's claim was fully and finally settled and it consented without objection to reversal of the admission order. The record also established that the claim concerning transportation charges had been disputed before issuance of the demand notice, particularly regarding the distance measurements forming the basis of billing. The only claim received during the process, relating to provident-fund dues, had also been paid in full. In these circumstances, there was no subsisting creditor claim requiring continuation of the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The operational creditor's insolvency application could not be sustained, as the debt stood settled and a genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the statutory demand notice.

Issues: (i) Whether units booked after 30.06.2018 could be excluded from the anti-profiteering investigation; (ii) Whether the net profiteered amount was refundable to identified homebuyers or depositable in the Consumer Welfare Fund; (iii) Whether excess benefit passed to some buyers could be set off against liability owed to other buyers; (iv) Whether GST on the inflated base price formed part of the profiteered amount; (v) Whether interest was payable and the date from which it was to be computed; (vi) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was applicable.

Issue (i): Whether units booked after 30.06.2018 could be excluded from the anti-profiteering investigation.

Analysis: The ITC benefit is project-specific where construction commenced before GST and continued after its implementation. A post-GST purchaser is entitled to the ITC benefit attributable to post-GST inputs used in construction. Fresh price negotiation or maintenance of average prices, without documented evidence of a commensurate ITC reduction, does not establish that the benefit was passed on.

Conclusion: Post-GST booked units were not excludable; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the net profiteered amount was refundable to identified homebuyers or depositable in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: Deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund is a residuary measure applicable only where recipients genuinely cannot be identified. Buyer-wise project records identified the 128 eligible homebuyers, and absence of a complaint, current contact details, or transfer of project operations did not render them unidentifiable. The supplier's statutory liability to pass on the benefit survives project transfer.

Conclusion: The net profiteered amount must be returned to the identified homebuyers and cannot be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether excess benefit passed to some buyers could be set off against liability owed to other buyers.

Analysis: The obligation to pass on ITC benefit is owed separately to each recipient. Excess payment to one group of customers cannot discharge the obligation owed to different customers. The statutory framework does not empower recovery of alleged excess benefit from consumers or adjustment of that excess against liabilities due to other recipients.

Conclusion: Set-off of excess benefit passed to 1039 customers against the liability to the remaining 128 customers was refused; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether GST on the inflated base price formed part of the profiteered amount.

Analysis: The excess amount paid by a homebuyer includes GST charged on the inflated base price. Even if that tax was remitted to the Government, it was an additional cost borne by the buyer and must be restored to place the buyer in the position that would have prevailed had the ITC benefit been passed on.

Conclusion: Inclusion of GST at 12% in the profiteered amount was upheld; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether interest was payable and the date from which it was to be computed.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(b) validly provides for interest at 18% per annum on the amount not passed on to recipients. Since the project-wide computation did not permit identification of the exact date of collection of excess amount for each square foot, the date of payment of the last instalment by each buyer was adopted as the appropriate starting point.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% per annum is payable from the respective date of the last instalment paid by each eligible homebuyer until refund; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was applicable.

Analysis: The entire contravention period ended on 30.10.2019, before Section 171(3A) came into force on 01.01.2020. A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively to a completed period of contravention.

Conclusion: No penalty under Section 171(3A) is payable; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The developer remained liable to return the net unpassed ITC benefit of Rs. 40,99,917 to the 128 identified homebuyers, with interest, while no penal consequence could be imposed for the pre-enforcement contravention period.

Ratio Decidendi: In a transitional real-estate project, ITC benefit must be passed on project-wise to every eligible recipient, and liability owed to one recipient cannot be neutralised by excess benefit given to another.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs procured from units availing exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-CE was admissible before the amendment to Rule 12 effective from 20.01.2014; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the credit.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs procured from units availing exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-CE was admissible before the amendment to Rule 12 effective from 20.01.2014.

Analysis: The CENVAT credit scheme requires harmonious reading of its provisions. Credit is available where the input has suffered duty, is used in manufacture of final products or provision of output services, and is received under prescribed documents. As these conditions were undisputedly fulfilled, and the Rules contained no express pre-amendment prohibition against such credit, the later express provision could not be read as restricting credit for the earlier period.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit was admissible before 20.01.2014; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the credit.

Analysis: The records had been subjected to audits, returns were regularly filed, and refund claims had been processed. Revenue produced no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The dispute also involved interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, in which circumstances the extended period was not invocable.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed input credit remains available and the demand is time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions for CENVAT credit are fulfilled and no express prohibition exists, a subsequent amendment expressly allowing such credit does not itself justify denial for the preceding period; extended limitation requires proof of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Issues: (i) Whether freight incurred for FOR destination sales up to the buyers' premises formed part of the assessable value for central excise duty; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand despite prior departmental knowledge of the freight exclusion and conflicting decisions on the place of removal.

Issue (i): Whether freight incurred for FOR destination sales up to the buyers' premises formed part of the assessable value for central excise duty.

Analysis: Under FOR destination sales, delivery occurs at the buyers' premises. Freight and transportation charges incurred up to that place are consequently includible in the assessable value. The merits issue stood covered against the assessee.

Conclusion: Freight up to the buyers' premises was includible in the assessable value; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand despite prior departmental knowledge of the freight exclusion and conflicting decisions on the place of removal.

Analysis: The earlier notice concerning the same exclusion of freight and cartage had already placed the material facts within the Department's knowledge. Further, conflicting decisions on the place of removal made the assessee's belief regarding non-inclusion of freight reasonably possible. The same known facts could not subsequently constitute suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The entire demand was beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although freight was liable to be included in assessable value for FOR destination sales, the time-barred demand, interest and penalty could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department already possesses the relevant facts, their repetition in a subsequent notice cannot establish suppression for invoking the extended limitation period; a bona fide view supported by conflicting decisions also negates intent to evade duty.

Issues: (i) Whether an independent Chartered Accountant certifying statutory e-Forms is an officer or officer in default amenable to direct prosecution by the Registrar of Companies; (ii) Whether prosecution under Section 628 read with Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 can proceed without specific material showing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance by the certifying professional; (iii) Whether the complaint filed in 2020 regarding e-Forms and allotments made between 2011 and 2014 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether an independent Chartered Accountant certifying statutory e-Forms is an officer or officer in default amenable to direct prosecution by the Registrar of Companies.

Analysis: The statutory definitions of officer and officer in default concern persons involved in corporate governance, management, and internal administration. Section 2(60)(v) of the Companies Act, 2013 excludes a person giving advice to the Board in a professional capacity. An external Chartered Accountant certifying statutory forms is not thereby transformed into an internal corporate officer. However, exclusion from officer status does not create an absolute immunity from prosecution under a provision directed at any person where active criminal complicity is prima facie shown.

Conclusion: An independent professional certifier is not an officer or officer in default merely by certifying statutory e-Forms, though prosecution for a separate offence may lie upon material establishing active criminal complicity.

Issue (ii): Whether prosecution under Section 628 read with Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 can proceed without specific material showing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance by the certifying professional.

Analysis: Section 628 requires a knowingly false material statement or intentional concealment. The complaint attributed falsification, mala fides, and physical filing of the forms to the company director, while alleging only that the professional certified the forms. It contained no foundational allegation or material indicating personal knowledge of falsity, deliberate concealment, or connivance. The primary responsibility for accurate filing rested on the company and its directors under Rule 10 of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.

Conclusion: Prosecution of the certifying professional could not proceed because the complaint disclosed no specific material establishing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint filed in 2020 regarding e-Forms and allotments made between 2011 and 2014 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The alleged offence under Section 628 read with Section 75 carried a maximum punishment of two years and was therefore subject to the three-year limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complaint was instituted long after the relevant filings, without an application or sufficient basis for condonation under Section 473 of that Code. The date of filing of the complaint governs computation, and stale prosecution cannot be initiated after expiry of the prescribed period without valid condonation.

Conclusion: The complaint was incurably barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The discharge of the surviving independent professional stands sustained for absence of the essential factual basis for criminal liability and for expiry of the statutory limitation period; this determination does not preclude proceedings in accordance with law against the company or its internal management.

Ratio Decidendi: A professional certifier may incur criminal liability for false statutory filings only upon specific material demonstrating knowing falsity or intentional participation, and a prosecution initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period without condonation is legally untenable.

Issues: Whether a director may be prosecuted under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for fraudulent availment of input tax credit by a company without arraigning the company as an accused.

Analysis: Section 137 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is pari materia with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The statutory phrase making persons in charge liable "as well as the company" makes commission of the offence by, and prosecution of, the company a condition precedent for fastening vicarious criminal liability on its director. The alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was by the company, which alone was the registered person entitled to take input tax credit under Section 16, while the director's alleged role arose solely from his position in the company. The company had not been arraigned in the complaint.

Conclusion: Prosecution of the director in his personal capacity without arraigning the company is not maintainable; the criminal complaint and consequential proceedings cannot continue against him.

Issues: Whether the employer could be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax on leave travel concession payments involving foreign travel, where binding interim directions prohibited such deduction during the relevant period.

Analysis: Although exemption for leave travel concession involving a foreign leg stood unavailable on merits, the interim directions of the Madras High Court remained operative throughout the relevant period and required the employer not to deduct tax on the payments. The statutory obligation to deduct tax at source had to yield to those binding judicial directions. A subsequent decision settling the exemption issue on merits could not retrospectively impose default liability for a period in which the employer acted in compliance with the interim orders.

Conclusion: The employer could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1), and consequential interest under section 201(1A) was not chargeable.

Ratio Decidendi: An employer acting in compliance with binding interim judicial directions restraining tax deduction cannot be subjected to default consequences for that non-deduction, notwithstanding a later merits determination against the underlying exemption.