Issues: (i) Whether the personal-hearing requirement before an adverse tax determination was complied with; (ii) Whether refund of the amount recovered before expiry of the appeal period should be directed.

Issue (i): Whether the personal-hearing requirement before an adverse tax determination was complied with.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the proper officer to consider the taxpayer's representation before determining tax, interest and penalty, and requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. Three hearing dates were granted after receipt of the response, and the authorised representative attended and confirmed that the written defence was the final submission. The record of those hearings was not controverted in the pleadings. A further hearing merely because the order was issued later is not mandated.

Conclusion: The opportunity of personal hearing was duly afforded and the requirement was complied with, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of the amount recovered before expiry of the appeal period should be directed.

Analysis: No refund direction was warranted because the taxpayer did not institute the writ proceedings within the three-month statutory period available for filing an appeal.

Conclusion: Refund of the recovered amount was declined, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The taxpayer may pursue the statutory appellate remedy within the stipulated period, with the period spent prosecuting the writ excluded for limitation purposes; all issues other than the hearing issue remain open before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer is afforded a hearing after the authority contemplates an adverse determination and the authorised representative makes final submissions, the requirement of an opportunity of hearing is satisfied and does not require a second hearing before issuance of the order.

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustainable despite the challenges to the predicate allegations, the alleged absence of a money trail, and the claimed invalidity of the reasons to believe; (ii) Whether the adjudication was vitiated by non-supply of relied-upon documents and absence of a scheduled offence; (iii) Whether funds predating the alleged criminal activity could be attached as value of proceeds of crime; (iv) Whether the accounts of the entities operated by the second appellant and the joint accounts operated by the third appellant were liable to attachment; (v) Whether pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts could remain under attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustainable despite the challenges to the predicate allegations, the alleged absence of a money trail, and the claimed invalidity of the reasons to believe.

Analysis: The material showed that the first appellant was charge-sheeted, his discharge application had been rejected and charges had been framed in the predicate case. The decision concerning appointments under the 2016 recruitment process did not concern the distinct allegations relating to manipulation of TET-2014. Witness statements, digital material, cash deposits, multiple accounts, and routing of funds into investments supported the finding that the attached assets represented proceeds of crime. The appellants did not satisfactorily disclose the source of the cash deposits despite the statutory burden under Sections 8(1) and 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was sustainable against the appellants, except to the limited extent separately directed.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication was vitiated by non-supply of relied-upon documents and absence of a scheduled offence.

Analysis: The relied-upon documents had been supplied and a detailed response to the notice was filed, demonstrating an effective opportunity to contest the proceedings. Cognizance had been taken and charges framed in relation to the predicate offences.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice and absence of a scheduled offence was rejected against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether funds predating the alleged criminal activity could be attached as value of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Where directly derived proceeds are unavailable or have been laundered, the statutory expression includes property of equivalent value. Since the alleged proceeds substantially exceeded the value of the attached properties and the appellants did not establish the source of substantial cash deposits, attachment of properties acquired before the alleged crime was permissible to secure the value of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: Attachment of pre-existing funds as property of equivalent value was upheld against the appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether the accounts of the entities operated by the second appellant and the joint accounts operated by the third appellant were liable to attachment.

Analysis: The evidence supported the finding that the consultancy and online-class entities were used to collect and project illicit funds as business receipts, without effective services being rendered. The third appellant's joint accounts were used to park cash and create fixed deposits and investments; the source of the deposits was not explained.

Conclusion: Attachment of the entity accounts and joint accounts was sustained against the appellants.

Issue (v): Whether pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts could remain under attachment.

Analysis: The attachment included accounts containing retirement-related benefits. Although other balances remained attachable in view of the proceeds of crime found, pension, gratuity and provident-fund components were directed to be segregated and released.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to release of the pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts; attachment of salary, legislative honorarium and other amounts remained operative.

Final Conclusion: The attachment framework and findings concerning proceeds of crime were maintained, with confined relief protecting the identified retirement-benefit amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged proceeds of crime are untraceable and the person fails to explain cash deposits and assets, property of equivalent value may be attached, including property acquired before the scheduled offence.

Issues: Whether properties acquired before or during the alleged crime period could be attached as property of equivalent value of proceeds of crime, and whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving their lawful source.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime encompasses not only tainted property derived from scheduled criminal activity but also property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds are unavailable or untraceable. Consequently, even properties acquired before the crime period, including gifted or ancestral assets, may be attached as equivalent value. The appellant did not dispute the allegations concerning his involvement or the quantified proceeds attributed to him. The explanations concerning loans, gifts, cash deposits, bank withdrawals, property purchases and construction expenditure did not establish lawful sources or explain repayment of loans and utilisation of funds. The statutory burden under Section 24 remained undischarged.

Conclusion: Attachment of the identified properties as equivalent value of proceeds of crime was sustainable, and the appellant failed to prove lawful sources for the assets and transactions in question.

Issues: Whether service-tax credit on clearing charges, export-sales commission, material-handling charges, terminal-handling charges and bank commission charges was admissible as input-service credit.

Analysis: For manufacturer exports, the place of removal extends to the port at which the goods are loaded for export; consequently, services used up to that point for export clearance, handling and terminal operations fall within the scope of input service. Export-sales commission is covered as sales promotion, and the clarificatory explanation concerning sales promotion operates beneficially. Banking and finance services used in carrying on manufacturing activity are also covered input services.

Conclusion: Credit of service tax paid on clearing charges, export-sales commission, material-handling charges, terminal-handling charges and bank commission charges is admissible to the assessee.

Issues: Whether an adjudicating authority may confirm a tax demand exceeding the demand proposed in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of a demand exceeding that proposed in the show-cause notice. The adjudication order confirmed tax and penalty substantially above the amounts proposed, constituting a patent statutory violation and a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was without jurisdiction insofar as it confirmed a demand exceeding the show-cause notice, and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a summary notice under Section 74(1), lacking specific reasons and unsupported by the relevant documents sought by the taxpayer, could sustain consequential recovery and bank-account attachment proceedings.

Analysis: Section 74(1) requires a notice specifying the tax liability proposed on grounds of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. The impugned notice merely reproduced the statutory provision without stating specific reasons. The relevant documents requested for defending the proceedings were also not supplied, preventing effective participation. A defect in the foundational notice cannot be cured in appellate or revisional proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice, recovery order, and bank-account attachment were invalid and were quashed; the authorities may initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a notice containing specific reasons and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether an order giving effect to an appellate order, including computation of refund interest, is appealable under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether a part refund must be adjusted first against accrued interest or against the principal tax refund for computing interest under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether an order giving effect to an appellate order, including computation of refund interest, is appealable under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The appeal-effect order was passed pursuant to the appellate order under Sections 254 and 154 and retained the character of an assessment order. Such an order falls within the appealable category under Section 246A(1)(c), notwithstanding that the dispute concerns computation of interest on refund.

Conclusion: The appeal-effect order is appealable under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a part refund must be adjusted first against accrued interest or against the principal tax refund for computing interest under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: No express statutory mechanism prescribes appropriation of a part refund. The principle in the Explanation to Section 140A(1), as applied to refund computation, requires a payment short of the aggregate tax and interest to be appropriated first towards interest and thereafter towards tax. This concerns interest on the unpaid principal refund and does not amount to impermissible interest on interest.

Conclusion: The part refund must first be adjusted against interest accrued up to the date of that refund, with any balance adjusted against the principal tax refund, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate remedy against the appeal-effect order and the interest-first method of appropriating part refunds were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a part payment of a statutory refund is made, it is appropriated first towards accrued refund interest and only thereafter towards principal, so that interest under Section 244A continues on the unpaid principal amount.

Issues: (i) Whether the tender condition disqualifying a bidder where its promoter director is a defaulter or associated with non-performing credit facilities is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the executive involvement and control of Sri T. Gautham Pai rendered the bidder ineligible under that tender condition.

Issue (i): Whether the tender condition disqualifying a bidder where its promoter director is a defaulter or associated with non-performing credit facilities is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The condition sought to secure the financial standing and creditworthiness of bidders. In commercial tender evaluation, the credentials of persons controlling a closely held company are relevant alongside the company's separate legal identity. Judicial review of tender conditions is confined to arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or perversity; the tendering authority enjoys contractual freedom and is best placed to assess its commercial requirements. The condition had a rational nexus with financial credibility, and no mala fides or ulterior purpose was established. Further, the bidder had participated unreservedly after knowing the condition and furnished an undertaking of compliance.

Conclusion: The tender condition is valid and is not manifestly arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; the finding is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the executive involvement and control of Sri T. Gautham Pai rendered the bidder ineligible under that tender condition.

Analysis: The expression "Promoter Director" in the tender condition was not confined to the formal promoter entry in annual returns. The applicable statutory concept of promoter includes a person exercising direct or indirect control over company affairs. The material showed that Sri T. Gautham Pai was an original promoter, long-serving managing and whole-time director, and had been reappointed Executive Chairman with extensive strategic, managerial, governance and financial oversight functions. His recategorisation as a professional director did not alter his actual executive authority or control over management and policy decisions.

Conclusion: Sri T. Gautham Pai remained a promoter director exercising de facto control of the bidder, and the bidder was ineligible under the tender condition; the finding is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The tender condition lawfully permits assessment of the financial credentials and control exercised by promoters of a closely held bidding company, and the bidder's claimed recategorisation of its controlling executive does not negate that status.

Ratio Decidendi: In tender matters, a condition linking bidder eligibility to the financial credibility of promoter directors is valid where rationally connected to commercial creditworthiness, and promoter status may be established by de facto control over management or policy decisions rather than formal corporate classification alone.

Issues: Whether interest for delayed filing of returns can be levied on tax amounts credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger on or before the return due date, and whether refund of excess interest could be denied by treating the proviso to Rule 88B as prospective.

Analysis: Amounts deposited in the Electronic Cash Ledger remain available only for discharge of tax liability and are in the nature of advance tax. Interest under Section 50 is compensatory and cannot be charged for the period after tax has already been deposited in that ledger merely because the return was filed later and the ledger was debited on filing. The proviso to Rule 88B accords with this position. The refund claim was rejected without applying the binding ruling that governed the claim, despite that ruling having been specifically brought to the authority's notice. Such rejection was arbitrary and reflected non-application of mind.

Conclusion: Interest is not payable on tax amounts lying in the Electronic Cash Ledger from the return due date until debit upon delayed filing; denial of refund of the resulting excess interest was unsustainable and the refund was directed to be granted with statutory interest.

Issues: Whether the assessee should be granted an extended instalment schedule for payment of outstanding CGST and SGST interest.

Analysis: The authorities had granted four monthly instalments for the outstanding interest. Having regard to the financial burden asserted and the circumstances of the case, an extended period for payment in equal monthly instalments was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The assessee was permitted to clear the outstanding interest by the end of December 2026 in equal monthly instalments; upon default of any instalment, the facility would automatically stand withdrawn.

Issues: Whether detention of a vehicle and goods solely because the e-way bill expired shortly before inspection was lawful where the vehicle had reached the destination city but could not reach the delivery point owing to breakdown.

Analysis: The detention order disclosed no ground other than expiry of the e-way bill. The vehicle had reached Vijayawada within the validity period and was unable to travel the remaining distance of less than eight kilometres because of breakdown. In the absence of tax evasion or any other contravention, invoking the detention power solely on this basis was hyper-technical and improper.

Conclusion: The detention and continuation of proceedings were held improper; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to seek waiver of the statutory pre-deposit on grounds of financial incapacity.

Analysis: In the peculiar facts, an opportunity was warranted for the petitioner to explain the asserted pecuniary condition and inability to make the prescribed pre-deposit before the Appellate Authority. Any such application is to be considered by that Authority in accordance with law. The direction is confined to the facts of the case and is not precedent.

Conclusion: The petitioner may apply to the Appellate Authority for waiver of pre-deposit, and the application may be considered in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether capital gains on sale of a redeveloped flat received as permanent alternate accommodation are short-term or long-term capital gains; (ii) Whether indexed cost of acquisition and exemption for investment in another residential house are available on such sale.

Issue (i): Whether capital gains on sale of a redeveloped flat received as permanent alternate accommodation are short-term or long-term capital gains.

Analysis: A redevelopment arrangement preserves and substitutes the existing owner's proprietary rights in the old premises; it does not extinguish those rights and create a wholly fresh capital asset upon execution of the permanent alternate accommodation agreement. The agreement merely identifies the premises allotted pursuant to enforceable rights that had already crystallised under the redevelopment arrangement. The original area, additional area available under redevelopment, purchased additional area, and area derived through transfer of pre-existing rights could not be artificially separated into new assets. Even if the holding period were reckoned from the development agreement rather than acquisition of the original flat, the asset had been held well beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The gain from sale of the redeveloped flat is assessable as long-term capital gain, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether indexed cost of acquisition and exemption for investment in another residential house are available on such sale.

Analysis: Since the sale resulted in long-term capital gain and the capital gain was invested in another residential house within the prescribed period, the consequential denial of indexation and residential-house exemption could not stand.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to indexed cost of acquisition and exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The addition based on short-term capital-gain treatment is deleted, with consequential computation of long-term capital gain, indexation, and residential-house exemption in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a redevelopment arrangement, permanent alternate accommodation is a continuation of pre-existing ownership rights, and its holding period is reckoned from the crystallisation of those enforceable rights rather than from the later accommodation agreement.

Issues: (i) Whether the Indian subsidiary could be treated as a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment and business income attributed to the foreign assessee; (ii) Whether interest on income-tax refund could be assessed without prior notice and despite the assessee's claim of non-receipt.

Issue (i): Whether the Indian subsidiary could be treated as a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment and business income attributed to the foreign assessee.

Analysis: The transfer-pricing order concerning the Indian subsidiary accepted its declared arm's-length price without adjustment. The identical issue for an earlier assessment year had been resolved in favour of the assessee, and the consequential order had deleted the addition based on Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment. No contrary decision of a higher forum was shown.

Conclusion: The Indian subsidiary could not be treated as a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment for attributing business income to the assessee; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on income-tax refund could be assessed without prior notice and despite the assessee's claim of non-receipt.

Analysis: The interest component was not included in the show-cause notice and was introduced in the draft assessment order. The lower authorities had not examined the assessee's claim that no refund interest was received during the relevant year.

Conclusion: The interest issue is remitted for fresh consideration; if the assessee had not received the interest during the year, it cannot be assessed as income.

Final Conclusion: The addition founded on Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment is deleted, while the refund-interest question requires fresh factual adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Indian affiliate's relevant transactions have been accepted at arm's length and an identical issue has been conclusively resolved in the assessee's favour, income cannot be attributed to the foreign enterprise on the basis that the affiliate constitutes a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment.

Issues: Whether the orders permitting retention of frozen bank funds, crypto assets and seized material under Section 17(4) could stand without specific findings on the appellants' role, ownership and control of the assets, and their nexus with alleged proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The retention orders did not substantively address the appellants' explanations that they operated cryptocurrency exchange platforms, the extent of information and control available to them, the ownership of assets held in pool wallets, the position of third-party customers, or the alleged connection between the frozen assets and proceeds of crime. The Adjudicating Authority was required to deal with these material questions and record specific, reasoned findings after allowing both sides to substantiate their claims.

Conclusion: The retention orders could not be sustained in the absence of reasoned findings on the material issues and required fresh determination by the Adjudicating Authority.

Issues: Whether the appellate tribunal could remand the service-tax appeal for factual examination despite the asserted settled precedent concerning construction of residential quarters for a government-owned police housing corporation.

Analysis: The material fact requiring verification was limited to whether the petitioner had undertaken construction for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Limited. The applicable precedent treated that government-owned corporation as a government organisation and excluded construction services supplied to it from the charge under construction of residential complex service. A remand to the adjudicating authority, instead of deciding the appeal on that limited factual basis and applying the precedent, would cause avoidable further litigation.

Conclusion: The prior remand order could not be sustained; the appeal must be decided afresh on merits by a reasoned order.

Issues: Whether parallel Central and State GST proceedings concerning the same subject matter may continue, and the procedure for determining the authority competent to adjudicate.

Analysis: The statutory bar applies where formal adjudicatory proceedings, commenced through show-cause notices, concern an identical or overlapping tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from the same contravention. The concerned tax authorities must verify any asserted overlap and decide between themselves which authority will continue; the designated authority must then adjudicate upon the taxpayer's response and supporting material by a speaking, reasoned order.

Conclusion: If the Central and State notices concern the same subject matter, only the authority designated inter se may proceed with adjudication; the petitioner must first submit replies and supporting documents to both authorities.

Issues: Whether input tax credit can be denied to a purchasing dealer who paid GST to the registered selling dealer, solely because the selling dealer failed to file returns and deposit the tax.

Analysis: Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(d) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were applied in accordance with the binding interpretation that protects a bona fide purchasing dealer holding a valid tax invoice and having paid the tax to the supplier. The supplier admitted receipt of the GST but non-filing of returns. The purchaser's input tax credit could not be disallowed merely due to the supplier's default; recovery action lies against the defaulting supplier.

Conclusion: Denial of input tax credit and the consequential GST demand against the purchasing dealer were unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of a partner's capital contribution as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was sustainable where the assessee produced documentary evidence of the contribution through banking instruments.

Analysis: The partner had been inducted into the firm, and the credited amount was reflected in the partner's capital account and the firm's balance sheet. The assessee's contemporaneous explanation, pay-in slips, demand-draft details and partner-account records established that the contribution was received through banking instruments. These materials were not controverted. The absence of a separate confirmation from the partner did not displace the documentary evidence or justify treating the contribution as the firm's unexplained income. The authorities failed to consider the material evidence and incorrectly concluded that the assessee had not discharged its onus.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether allotment of permanent alternate accommodation under a registered redevelopment agreement, before completion of construction and delivery of possession, attracts Section 56(2)(x) as receipt of immovable property without consideration.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(x) is attracted only upon actual receipt of immovable property in the relevant previous year. Registration of a redevelopment agreement, while construction remains incomplete and no possession or enjoyment of the alternate premises is available, creates only a contractual right to obtain the premises in future and does not amount to receipt of immovable property. Further, allotment of permanent alternate accommodation in exchange for surrender of tenancy rights is supported by valuable reciprocal consideration and is not a gratuitous receipt. The charging deeming provision must be construed strictly and cannot be extended notionally beyond its express requirement of receipt.

Conclusion: Section 56(2)(x) does not apply to the allotment of the alternate premises; the addition based on their stamp-duty value is liable to be deleted in favour of the assessee.