Issues: Whether the Explanations to Rule 38 of the 2016 Rules and Rule 45(8)(a) of the 2017 Rules, which include royalty, District Mineral Foundation and National Mineral Exploration Trust payments in sale value for computing average sale price and royalty, are unconstitutional or ultra vires Section 9 of the MMDR Act.

Analysis: Subordinate legislation carries a presumption of constitutionality and may be invalidated only on recognised grounds such as violation of fundamental rights, inconsistency with the parent statute, lack of legislative competence or manifest arbitrariness. The measure of a levy is distinct from its nature, and the rule-making authority has broad latitude in prescribing the method of computation, provided that the measure bears a reasonable nexus to the levy. Inclusion of royalty, DMF and NMET payments in sale value operates as a regulatory measure to address manipulation and evasion in the computation of average sale price. The measure is neither capricious nor disproportionate, and comparison with coal is unjustified because coal is governed by a different pricing mechanism. The three-year restriction in Section 9(3) applies to revision of the royalty rate and does not prevent prescribing the method of computing the levy.

Conclusion: The impugned Explanations are constitutional and valid, do not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and are not ultra vires Section 9 of the MMDR Act.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and the interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether failure to conduct the required due diligence before investing in debt securities breached the mutual-fund regulatory framework; (ii) whether extending the maturity of securities and partially redeeming close-ended schemes after their maturity dates was permissible where investors suffered no loss or obtained gains; (iii) whether inadequate disclosure to unitholders and SEBI constituted a regulatory violation; and (iv) whether the penalties imposed on the asset management company, trustee and senior executives required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants failed to exercise the due diligence required before investing in the relevant debt securities.

Analysis: The regulatory framework required a high standard of diligence and care in evaluating investments. The material showed that the investment decision relied substantially on collateral and the reputation of the group, despite the financial weakness of the issuing entities and the absence of adequate analysis of credit, liquidity and interest-rate risks. The regulator's reasoned findings on this specialised issue were entitled to deference and were not shown to be manifestly perverse.

Conclusion: The appellants breached the applicable due-diligence obligations.

Issue (ii): Whether extending the maturity of the securities beyond the maturity dates of the close-ended schemes and withholding part of the redemption proceeds was permissible because no investor loss occurred and investors ultimately gained.

Analysis: Regulation 33(4), read with Regulation 39(1), required full redemption and winding up of a close-ended scheme at the end of its fixed maturity period unless a valid rollover was undertaken after the prescribed disclosures and written consent of the unitholders. No such rollover occurred. Investor gain, absence of complaints, or avoidance of a possible loss could not excuse a breach because the regulatory scheme was consequence-neutral and mandatory. Reliance on the segregated-portfolio framework also failed because its prescribed procedure was not followed.

Conclusion: The extension of maturity and delayed partial redemption violated the applicable regulations, and the alleged absence of investor loss or resulting gain was no defence.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants failed to provide the disclosures required to unitholders and SEBI.

Analysis: The statutory framework required material information concerning the proposed course of action to be disclosed to unitholders and the regulator. The relevant decisions and arrangements were not disclosed to SEBI before implementation, and the unitholders were not given the prescribed opportunity to consent to a rollover. The trustee also failed to independently assess compliance and the interests of the unitholders.

Conclusion: The appellants committed a regulatory violation by failing to make the required disclosures and by adopting a course not authorised by the regulatory framework.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalties imposed on the asset management company, trustee and senior executives warranted interference, including on the ground that the absence of investor prejudice was mitigating.

Analysis: Under the applicable penalty provisions, proof of contravention was sufficient and mens rea was not required unless the statute so provided. The merits findings disclosed established violations, and the penalties imposed on the asset management company and trustee were not excessive or otherwise warranting interference. Given the senior executives' expertise and their role in exposing unitholders to regulatory and financial risk, the absence of ultimate investor prejudice did not justify waiver or reduction of their penalties.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed on all appellants did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: Regulatory compliance governing mutual-fund schemes is mandatory and cannot be displaced by commercial expediency, investor gains, or the avoidance of a possible loss. The findings of violation and the penalties were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A breach of mandatory mutual-fund regulations is actionable irrespective of investor gain, absence of loss, absence of complaints, or lack of mens rea where the penalty provisions do not require it; close-ended schemes must be redeemed and wound up at maturity unless the prescribed rollover procedure is followed.

Issues: Whether, for admission of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the interest component on inter corporate deposits could be included in the financial debt for determining default above the threshold under Section 4, where the interest obligation was supported by oral arrangement, TDS deductions, and the corporate debtor's written acknowledgment of the total outstanding dues.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 requires satisfaction regarding the existence of financial debt, occurrence of default, and completeness of the application. Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 defines financial debt as a debt along with interest, if any, disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. On that statutory framework, interest forming part of the agreed financial arrangement cannot be excluded while assessing the amount of default under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The record showed admitted inter corporate deposit transactions, partial repayments, calculation of accrued interest, deduction and deposit of TDS on the interest component, and, most materially, the corporate debtor's reply dated 19.09.2024 acknowledging liability for the total claimed amount and seeking time to pay. The claim for interest was therefore not a unilateral assertion resting only on TDS entries. Absence of a written agreement on interest did not defeat the claim where the surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct established an oral understanding regarding payment of interest.

Analysis: Excluding the interest component merely because no written agreement existed and treating the case as based only on TDS deductions led to an erroneous computation of default. The relevant inquiry was the total financial debt due and payable, including legally payable interest, and whether that total crossed the statutory threshold. The cumulative material established both the existence of financial debt and default above the threshold required for Section 7.

Conclusion: The interest component was includible in the financial debt for purposes of Sections 5(8), 4 and 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the appellant successfully established financial debt and default above the statutory threshold. The impugned order rejecting the Section 7 application was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was validly invoked for the service tax demand, and whether the proceedings were consequently without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The notice dated 24.07.2009 covered the period 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2007. For the relevant period, the normal limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was one year, and the return for the period ending 31.03.2007 was required to be filed under Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 by 25.04.2007. The demand was therefore beyond the normal period and could survive only if the extended period was properly invocable. The only basis relied on was that the liability came to light during audit and that returns had not been filed. The reasoning accepted that mere non-registration, non-filing of returns, or non-declaration of activity does not by itself amount to wilful suppression or establish intent to evade tax, particularly where the dispute is interpretational and arises from the assessee's records. In the absence of deliberate misstatement or suppression with intent to evade, the jurisdictional condition for invoking the extended period was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; the demand was time-barred and the show cause notice failed on jurisdiction. Consequently, the proceedings were void and no demand of tax, interest, or penalty survived. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a refund application electronically filed within the prescribed period could be rejected as time-barred merely because its manual copy was filed later.

Analysis: Rule 97A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 uses the expression "include" while permitting manual filing in addition to electronic filing. The provision therefore enables manual filing and does not displace an online refund application already acknowledged within the statutory period. The online application acknowledged on 12.02.2019 was required to be treated as the relevant filing for considering the refund claim.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim on the basis of the later manual filing was illegal and arbitrary; the refund application must be reconsidered with reference to the timely online application.

Issues: Whether registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G, granted pursuant to a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment, could be made subject to the outcome of a proposed challenge before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: A jurisdictional High Court judgment remains binding on authorities within its territorial jurisdiction unless stayed, modified or reversed by a competent court. A contemplated or pending challenge before a superior forum does not diminish that binding force. Having granted registration and approval in compliance with the High Court judgment, the statutory authority could not dilute the grant through caveats founded on speculative future developments. No statutory mechanism authorised the conversion of an effective registration or approval into a tentative recognition subject to a possible future outcome.

Conclusion: The caveats making the registration, approval and consequential benefits subject to the outcome of a proposed Supreme Court challenge were unsustainable and were directed to be deleted; the assessee was entitled to the registration and approval without qualification or conditional rider.

Issues: Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process could be closed where no claims had been received following the public announcement and the parties had entered into discharge arrangements.

Analysis: The public announcement had been issued, yet the resolution professional confirmed that no claims were received in the corporate insolvency resolution process. Applying the principle that insolvency proceedings may be closed in appropriate circumstances, including where there is no subsisting claimant or impediment to closure, the discharge arrangements supported termination of the process. The consequential release of the bank lien and disbursement was directed in accordance with the discharge agreements.

Conclusion: The corporate insolvency resolution process was closed, the impugned order was set aside, and the bank lien was withdrawn for disbursement under the discharge agreements.

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory GST appeal could be condoned where the assessment order was uploaded under an incorrect portal category and was consequently not noticed by the assessee within the prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: Although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation framework under Section 107, the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the assessee's control: the assessment order was uploaded under "Additional Notices and Orders" rather than the prescribed "Notices and Orders" category. Refusal to permit the appeal in these circumstances would cause grave prejudice by denying adjudication on merits. The consistent approach in comparable matters supported exercise of writ jurisdiction to enable consideration of the appeal.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in favour of the assessee, and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits if filed within 30 days from uploading of the order.

Issues: Whether investment in two adjacent residential properties, acquired through separate registered deeds and amalgamated later, qualifies as investment in one residential house for exemption under Section 54F.

Analysis: The properties were separately purchased from distinct legal persons through separate registered deeds and were treated as separate residential houses until their subsequent amalgamation. The later municipal amalgamation itself established that the properties were separate at the time of acquisition. Authorities concerning multiple units or floors constituting one house were inapplicable because the present properties were independent houses subsequently amalgamated. The post-2015 statutory requirement of investment in one residential house could not be overridden on these facts.

Conclusion: The second property was not eligible for Section 54F exemption; the disallowance to that extent was restored, against the assessee.

Issues: Whether a reassessment notice issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was validly sanctioned by the specified authority.

Analysis: For AY 2018-19, the notice under Section 148 was issued on 26.04.2022, after expiry of three years from the end of that assessment year. Section 151(ii) required prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General. The approval was instead granted by the Principal Commissioner, who was not the specified authority for that period. The subsequently inserted Section 292BC does not validate approval granted by an authority other than the authority prescribed under the Act.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice lacked valid jurisdictional approval; consequently, the reassessment was invalid and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 151 mandates sanction from a higher specified authority after expiry of the prescribed three-year period, approval by a non-specified authority vitiates the reassessment for want of jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether caveats making registration under section 12AB and consequential benefits subject to a proposed challenge before the Supreme Court could be retained after registration was granted pursuant to a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment.

Analysis: A jurisdictional High Court judgment remains binding on authorities within its territorial jurisdiction unless stayed, modified or reversed. A contemplated or pending challenge before a superior forum does not diminish that binding force. Registration granted in compliance with such judgment must be decided under the law prevailing on the date of grant; no statutory mechanism permits the authority to render the registration tentative by reference to speculative future proceedings. The caveats also exceeded the High Court directions and created uncertainty inconsistent with the statutory scheme of registration.

Conclusion: The caveats qualifying the registration and consequential benefits were unsustainable and were directed to be deleted; the assessee was entitled to unqualified registration under section 12AB.

Issues: Whether refund of accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit could be denied on the ground that the input services lacked nexus with the exported output services.

Analysis: The rejection was founded on an earlier appellate order disallowing refund in respect of various input services for want of nexus. That earlier basis had subsequently been overturned in the assessee's own case, wherein the nexus issue concerning the relevant input services was treated as settled and refund was allowed. The same ground could therefore not support denial in the present period.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied for want of nexus between the input services and output services; the assessee was entitled to the consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the nexus of the relevant input services with exported output services stands settled in the assessee's favour, refund of accumulated Cenvat credit cannot be denied on that identical ground.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was payable on interconnection usage charges for the period before such service was made taxable; (ii) Whether service tax was payable on surcharge collected for delayed payment of telephone bills; (iii) Whether telephone services through public telephones at airports and hospitals, for which no bills were raised, were exempt from service tax.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was payable on interconnection usage charges for the period before such service was made taxable.

Analysis: The applicable clarification stated that interconnection usage services were not covered by the pre-amendment taxable-service definition and became taxable only upon the subsequent inclusion of such charges within telecommunication service. The demand related to the period before that amendment took effect.

Conclusion: Interconnection usage charges were not liable to service tax for the relevant period, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax was payable on surcharge collected for delayed payment of telephone bills.

Analysis: The applicable clarification treated delayed-payment surcharge as an amount that did not alter the value of the taxable telephone service and therefore did not attract service tax.

Conclusion: Surcharge collected for delayed payment of telephone bills was not liable to service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether telephone services through public telephones at airports and hospitals, for which no bills were raised, were exempt from service tax.

Analysis: Public calls made through the telephones installed at airports and hospitals were not billed, and the specified exemption applied to those services.

Conclusion: The public telephone services were exempt from service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: None of the three categories could sustain a service-tax demand; the associated interest and penalty consequently had no basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A service-tax levy cannot be imposed where the service was not taxable during the relevant period, where the amount collected does not form part of taxable value, or where a specific exemption applies.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty imposed on appellant no. 1 for dealing with confiscated cigarettes was sustainable; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on appellant no. 2 was excessive.

Issue (i): Whether penalty imposed on appellant no. 1 for dealing with confiscated cigarettes was sustainable.

Analysis: Appellant no. 1 failed to produce documents substantiating its asserted receipt of the cigarettes from appellant no. 2 and their subsequent return to appellant no. 2, despite substantial time having elapsed. The claimed transactions consequently remained unsupported.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on appellant no. 1 was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on appellant no. 2 was excessive.

Analysis: The penalty of Rs. 45 lakh was assessed against the value of the confiscated cigarettes, namely Rs. 87,69,260, and was found to be highly excessive.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on appellant no. 2 was reduced to Rs. 25 lakh, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty liability of appellant no. 1 remains intact, while appellant no. 2 receives reduction in the quantum of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for dealings in confiscated goods must be proportionate to the value of the goods and circumstances of the case.

Outcome: Both connected appeals were allowed pursuant to the settlement, and the impugned orders were set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be condoned; (ii) Whether the penalty appeal should be restored for adjudication on merits after condonation of delay.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay arose because tax communications were sent to the email address of the assessee's consultant, who was severely affected by COVID-19 and subsequently died. The assessee had filed the return and disclosed substantial taxable income, and there was no material indicating that the delayed filing was wilful or deliberate. Where technical considerations conflict with substantial justice, substantial justice should prevail in the absence of intentional delay.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty appeal should be restored for adjudication on merits after condonation of delay.

Analysis: The penalty order had been passed ex parte for want of compliance, while the first appellate authority had declined to admit the appeal solely on limitation and had not decided the penalty grounds on merits. A merits adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity was therefore required.

Conclusion: The appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The limitation objection was removed and the penalty dispute was directed to be decided afresh on merits; no determination was made on the validity of the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay attributable to a consultant's incapacity and death, without evidence of deliberate default by the assessee, warrants condonation where refusal would defeat adjudication on merits.

Issues: Whether GST can be deducted from compensation paid for compulsory acquisition of land and structures.

Analysis: GST under Article 366(12A) is attracted to a supply of goods or services. Land and buildings attached to it are immovable property; compulsory acquisition is an expropriation through exercise of eminent domain, not a voluntary supply, sale of goods, or provision of services by the landowner. No statutory basis was shown for levying GST on compensation awarded for the acquired land or structure.

Conclusion: Deduction of GST from the acquisition compensation was without authority of law and in excess of power.

Issues: Whether, after unsigned assessment orders were quashed, the authorities could be permitted to reissue the same orders after curing the signature defect, including through a successor officer, with protection against limitation.

Analysis: Orders issued without either digital or manual signature had already been quashed, and that quashing was not challenged by the official respondents. Once an order is quashed, the authorities may initiate and conclude fresh proceedings in accordance with law, but cannot cure the defect and reissue the very same quashed order. A successor officer cannot be authorised to issue the same predetermined order after hearing the assessee, since such hearing would be merely formal. The direction insulating any reissued order from limitation was consequently unsustainable.

Conclusion: The authorities cannot reissue the same quashed orders by affixing signatures or through successor officers, nor can such orders receive protection from limitation; they retain liberty to issue fresh orders in accordance with law and due procedure. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year were valid where approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rather than the prescribed higher authority.

Analysis: For a reassessment notice issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, Section 151 required prior sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, as applicable. The approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was consequently incompetent, rendering the consequential reassessment action invalid.

Conclusion: The approval was invalid for want of sanction by the competent statutory authority; the assessment order was therefore rightly quashed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.