Issues: Whether the suit, instituted during the operation of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was barred by law and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The interim moratorium under Section 96 commences on the filing of an application under Sections 94 or 95 and continues until admission or rejection of that application. During that period, legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt are stayed and creditors are prohibited from initiating fresh proceedings. The Court held that the expression "debt" in Section 96 is not confined to any particular category of debtor for the purpose of the embargo, and that the statutory bar operates by force of law once the relevant insolvency proceedings are in motion. Since the suit was filed when the interim moratorium was operating, the Court held that the suit could not validly be instituted or received for adjudication. The argument that the plaint could be dissected among different defendants was rejected, as the suit was one composite plaint and the embargo attached to the institution itself.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by Section 96(1)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and was liable to be dealt with under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the decree based on such suit could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether an order cancelling GST registration can be sustained when the cancellation is founded on a ground different from the one stated in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The cancellation order proceeded on the ground of non-furnishing of returns for the prescribed periods under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereas the show cause notice alleged registration obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under Section 29(2)(e) of the same Act. Since the assessee was not put to notice of the actual basis for cancellation, the order was found to rest on a ground alien to the notice.

Conclusion: The cancellation order could not be sustained and was quashed. The registration was restored, with liberty to issue a fresh notice on proper grounds in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy in view of the alleged violation of natural justice and jurisdictional error; (ii) whether non-consideration of the reply under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vitiated the adjudication; (iii) whether the alleged non-service of personal hearing notices under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the complaint regarding coercive statement and denial of cross-examination disclosed a ground for writ interference; (iv) whether the adjudicating authority lacked power to impose penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy in view of the alleged violation of natural justice and jurisdictional error

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ordinarily requires the aggrieved person to pursue the statutory remedy. The exception for writ intervention survives only where there is breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to vires. The grounds raised in the petition were examined against these exceptions and were found not to disclose a patent case warranting bypass of the appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts and the petitioner was to be relegated to the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): whether non-consideration of the reply under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vitiated the adjudication

Analysis: Section 74(9) obligates the proper officer to consider the representation before determining tax, interest and penalty. The order recorded a reply and contained reasons, and the adequacy of those reasons and the correctness of the findings were held to be matters for appellate scrutiny rather than writ review. A mere absence of elaborate discussion of every submission did not establish non-consideration.

Conclusion: No writ interference was warranted on the alleged breach of Section 74(9).

Issue (iii): whether the alleged non-service of personal hearing notices under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the complaint regarding coercive statement and denial of cross-examination disclosed a ground for writ interference

Analysis: The plea regarding service of hearing notices turned on disputed questions of fact and required examination of departmental records. The challenge to the statement recorded under Section 70, the allegation of coercion, its retraction, and the request for cross-examination all went to evidentiary appreciation and the merits of adjudication. These matters did not show a self-evident violation of natural justice or a jurisdictional defect on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No ground for writ intervention was made out on these contentions.

Issue (iv): whether the adjudicating authority lacked power to impose penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Analysis: The challenge to penalty competence was rejected in light of the statutory scheme, including Explanation 1(ii) to Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which contemplate consequential proceedings being concluded in the adjudication itself. The view that the proper officer determining proceedings under Section 74 can impose consequential penalty was treated as settled and not indicative of lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority was held competent to impose the penalties.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction because the grievances either involved factual disputes or issues suitable for statutory appeal, and no patent jurisdictional error or manifest denial of natural justice was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complete statutory appellate remedy exists, writ interference is justified only in exceptional cases such as patent violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or a challenge to vires.

Issues: (i) whether the penalty order was sustainable when no show cause notice was served on the appellant and no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded; (ii) whether penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were maintainable in the absence of credible evidence showing the appellant's active role or knowledge in the alleged diversion of goods.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty order was sustainable when no show cause notice was served on the appellant and no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant was not served with the show cause notice and was not even named as a noticee. The Customs framework did not provide for service of notice through portal upload in the manner suggested by the department. An adverse order passed without issuance of notice and without affording a proper hearing could not stand.

Conclusion: The penalty order was unsustainable for breach of natural justice and want of notice, and the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were maintainable in the absence of credible evidence showing the appellant's active role or knowledge in the alleged diversion of goods.

Analysis: The department failed to produce transport documents, invoices, bank records, delivery instructions or correspondence linking the appellant to the alleged diversion. The material relied upon did not attribute any active role to him, and no facts were established to satisfy the ingredients of Sections 112(a), 112(b) or 114AA. In the absence of proof of a specific act or omission, possession, handling, or a false declaration or document, the penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA were not maintainable, and the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was set aside in entirety to the extent challenged, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under the Customs Act cannot be sustained unless the noticee is served with notice and the department establishes, by credible evidence, the specific ingredients of the penal provisions, including the person's active participation or knowledge where required.

Issues: (i) Whether construction of residential staff quarters and similar government housing projects fell outside the taxable net by virtue of the exclusion for personal use in the definition of residential complex service and the non-commercial character of the activity under works contract service; (ii) whether construction services rendered for APMC were taxable as commercial activity and whether the extended period of limitation and penalty provisions could be invoked; (iii) whether the demand relating to other government-related projects, including GETCO, and the resultant computation of tax and penalty required remand for reworking.

Issue (i): Whether construction of residential staff quarters and similar government housing projects fell outside the taxable net by virtue of the exclusion for personal use in the definition of residential complex service and the non-commercial character of the activity under works contract service.

Analysis: The construction of staff quarters and allied residential structures for government departments and agencies was found to be intended for use by the government for accommodation of its employees and not for commercial exploitation. The exclusion in the definition of residential complex service for a complex intended for personal use, as understood through the inclusive meaning of personal use, applied to such projects. The order also applied the settled distinction between taxable construction and construction meant for residential or civic use by government bodies, and treated such projects as outside the tax net.

Conclusion: The demand on this issue was not sustainable and was held in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether construction services rendered for APMC were taxable as commercial activity and whether the extended period of limitation and penalty provisions could be invoked.

Analysis: The activity undertaken for APMC was treated as falling within the taxable category because the recipient's activities were held to be commercial in nature according to the settled law on market committee functions and exemption conditions. The order also recorded suppression, non-registration, non-filing of returns, and non-payment, and treated the extended period as invocable. However, while computing the demand, cum-tax treatment and composition scheme benefit were held to be available.

Conclusion: The demand on this issue was upheld in favour of the Revenue, subject to re-computation with eligible abatements and related reliefs.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand relating to other government-related projects, including GETCO, and the resultant computation of tax and penalty required remand for reworking.

Analysis: The demand relating to GETCO was found not sustainable because the services were connected with transmission and distribution of electricity and were covered by the applicable exemption. The tribunal also observed that the surviving demand and penalty computation required reconsideration in the light of its findings, including the partial success of the Revenue and the limited issue surviving for recalculation.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for recomputation of the surviving demand and penalty, while the dropped GTA demand was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded only in part: the demand relating to APMC was sustained, the residential staff quarters and similar non-commercial government constructions remained the levy, the GETCO-related demand did not survive, and the case was sent back for fresh computation of the remaining liability and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Construction undertaken for government or institutional use is not taxable where the statutory exclusion for personal use or the non-commercial test is satisfied, whereas activity for a recipient engaged in commercial functions remains taxable and can justify invocation of the extended period where suppression is established.

Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed for want of specific averments showing that the petitioner, a Director, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.

Analysis: The complaint contained only general assertions that the accused directors were engaged in managing the company's day-to-day affairs. It did not state with specificity the petitioner's role in the transaction, his participation in issuance or execution of the cheque, or the manner in which he was responsible for the dishonour. The governing law requires a clear and unambiguous averment that the person sought to be prosecuted was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Mere designation as a Director is insufficient, and the words used in Section 141 are to be read conjunctively. In the absence of foundational pleadings and any specific allegation identifying the signatory of the cheque or the petitioner's role, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The proceeding against the petitioner was held liable to be quashed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the matter before the GST Appellate Tribunal despite its registration and numbering processes not being fully operational.

Analysis: The GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and had commenced functioning for adjudication of GST disputes. In the peculiar circumstances, including that the matter had reached the final stage before the High Court, the petitioner was permitted to approach the President of the Tribunal for registration, numbering, listing and, where necessary, consideration of interim relief. Priority hearing was considered appropriate.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the President of the GST Appellate Tribunal.

Issues: Whether the land transferred was agricultural land outside the statutory definition of a capital asset and whether the consequential capital-gains addition required fresh factual determination.

Analysis: The record contained conflicting material regarding the nature of the land and its location vis-a -vis municipal limits or notified distance. The revenue-authority reports sought by the Assessing Officer were not on record, while the assessees relied on revenue records and sale deeds describing the land as agricultural. The factual position therefore lacked sufficient clarity for determination of the capital-gains liability.

Outcome: The disputed issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after proper factual inquiry and reasonable opportunity to the assessees.

Issues: Whether additional Panchayat and Municipal stamp duties could be levied on an assignment deed by which a reconstruction company acquired a bank's loan, security interests and rights under an existing mortgage.

Analysis: The original lender had created and registered the mortgage over the borrower's immovable property and paid the applicable stamp duties at that stage. The assignment deed did not create a fresh mortgage, charge or encumbrance over immovable property; it only transferred the lender's loans, rights, liabilities and underlying security interests to the reconstruction company. Section 75 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Section 161 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 apply to instruments relating to the specified transfers or mortgages of immovable property. The notification issued under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 specifically fixed duty on securitisation of loans or assignment of debt with underlying immovable securities at 0.1% of the loan securitised or debt assigned, rather than by reference to the property's market value. Re-imposition of mortgage-related duty on the assignment would result in duplicate recovery and unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: No stamp duty beyond the amount already paid under the assignment-deed notification was chargeable from the petitioner; the demand founded on the Panchayat and Municipal duty provisions was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the acquittal for the offence of dishonour of cheque was sustainable where the Magistrate found that the statutory demand notice was not served and questioned the complainant's financial capacity.

Analysis: Production of the postal receipt showing dispatch of the written demand notice to the accused's correct address raises a presumption of issuance under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act; actual service is not a statutory requirement. A comparison of signatures on the cheque and acknowledgment card could not establish non-issuance of notice. Once the acknowledgment card is tendered, a denial of receipt must be proved by the accused, including through evidence of the postman. The complainant's unrebutted evidence explained the source of the loan, while the defence admitted prior financial dealings and issuance of the cheque as security without showing discharge of the liability or explaining the complainant's continued possession of it. The complainant consequently discharged the initial burden and was entitled to the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable; the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was convicted.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the disputed business-related services, including services used beyond the factory gate, was admissible as input-service credit.

Analysis: The disputed services fell within the inclusive portion of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. C&F agency services used for handling manufactured excisable goods remained eligible despite being used beyond the factory gate. The definition was broad enough to cover services used by the manufacturer for its business, except services specifically falling within the exclusion category. The disputed services had not been shown to fall within that exclusion.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the disputed services was admissible; denial and recovery under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were not sustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment order and consequential appellate rejection were sustainable when the assessee's reply was not considered and no opportunity of hearing was granted before an adverse tax determination.

Analysis: The reply filed in response to the show-cause notice was not denied, but had not been brought to the assessing authority's notice and was consequently not considered. Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, irrespective of a specific request. The assessment record did not establish compliance with that mandatory requirement. Availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ relief against an order vitiated by breach of natural justice; the appellate rejection could not survive once the foundational assessment lacked legal validity.

Conclusion: The assessment order and consequential actions, including the appellate rejection, were unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an assessment order imposing an adverse GST liability can be sustained without affording the registered person an opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, irrespective of whether the taxable person has made a written request. The admitted absence of a further notice affording personal hearing before the assessment rendered the statutory requirement unmet.

Conclusion: The assessment order was unsustainable for failure to provide the mandatory opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the stamp-duty guideline value prevailing on the date of an oral agreement, rather than on the subsequent registration date, was applicable under section 50C for computing capital gains from the land sales; (ii) Whether the entire amount treated as income from other sources was attributable to the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the stamp-duty guideline value prevailing on the date of an oral agreement, rather than on the subsequent registration date, was applicable under section 50C for computing capital gains from the land sales.

Analysis: The first proviso to section 50C, being curative and beneficial, applied retrospectively. An agreement fixing consideration need not be written; an oral agreement is sufficient. The purchasers' confirmations and bank-channel advances received before revision of the guideline values established the oral agreements and satisfied the condition for applying the proviso. The undisputed guideline values prevailing on the agreement dates were lower than the declared sale prices.

Conclusion: Section 50C was inapplicable to the relevant land sales, and the capital-gains additions based on subsequent guideline values were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the entire amount treated as income from other sources was attributable to the assessee.

Analysis: The assessee confined the challenge to the extent of her share in the amount. Verification was required to determine whether her share was Rs. 41,58,000 or another amount.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's share in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The capital-gains additions under section 50C do not survive, while the quantum attributable to the assessee as income from other sources remains subject to factual verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an oral agreement fixes sale consideration and part consideration is received through banking channels before the agreement date, the guideline value on that date governs section 50C; if the declared consideration exceeds that value, no deemed substitution arises.

Issues: (i) Whether a composite proceeding under Section 74 for multiple assessment years is legally sustainable; (ii) Whether denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon in adjudication violated principles of natural justice; (iii) Whether pocket diaries could be relied upon without proving them through their authors or custodians.

Issue (i): Whether a composite proceeding under Section 74 for multiple assessment years is legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 74 proceedings must relate to the relevant tax period. A composite notice and adjudication covering distinct assessment years as a block assessment is inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: A composite assessment under Section 74 for multiple assessment years is not legally sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon in adjudication violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Cross-examination is required where relied-upon witness statements form the basis of the proposed liability and the noticee seeks to test their veracity. Non-retraction of statements, the possibility that employees may be influenced, or an assumption that cross-examination may favour the noticee are not sound grounds to refuse the opportunity. Documentary material treated only as corroboration of such statements does not independently sustain the finding. The right does not extend to co-noticees penalised in the same proceedings, since requiring their examination would compel them to depose against themselves.

Conclusion: Denial of cross-examination on the stated grounds was unjustified and violated principles of natural justice, in favour of the assessee; cross-examination may be sought only in respect of persons who are not co-noticees.

Issue (iii): Whether pocket diaries could be relied upon without proving them through their authors or custodians.

Analysis: A document may be treated as relevant evidence only when it is produced or proved by its author or by a person responsible for maintaining it. The record did not disclose such proof for the pocket diaries, and the statements of the identified goldsmiths maintaining them had not been recorded.

Conclusion: The pocket diaries cannot be relied upon without proper proof through their authors or custodians, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Any renewed adjudication must be undertaken tax-period-wise and must afford a meaningful opportunity to test relied-upon evidence and establish the evidentiary basis of documents.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax adjudication founded on relied-upon witness statements and unproved corroborative documents must comply with natural justice by allowing effective cross-examination where warranted, and separate tax periods cannot be combined into a single Section 74 assessment.

Issues: Whether gain arising from cancellation or early settlement of forward foreign exchange contracts entered into to hedge foreign exchange exposure on underlying debt investments is assessable as capital gains or as income from other sources.

Analysis: The forward contracts were inextricably linked to the underlying debt securities held as investments. The applicable foreign-exchange hedging framework restricted the contracts to the value and tenor of the underlying exposure, and required their cancellation or unwinding when the underlying securities were sold. No material established independent foreign-exchange trading. As hedging instruments, the contracts took the character of the underlying capital investments. They constituted capital assets, and their cancellation or early settlement extinguished contractual rights and obligations, amounting to a transfer. Consistent earlier decisions on identical facts remained binding in the absence of reversal or stay by a superior forum.

Conclusion: The gain from cancellation or early settlement of the hedging forward foreign exchange contracts is taxable under the head Capital Gains and not under the head Income from Other Sources, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a single composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods could validly be passed under the GST assessment framework.

Analysis: The applicable assessment scheme requires proceedings to be confined to the relevant tax period. A composite order spanning more than one tax period is impermissible, as it affects the registered person's statutory benefits and appellate remedies. The revenue did not dispute either the governing legal position or the fact that the impugned assessment covered multiple tax periods.

Conclusion: The composite assessment order was invalid and was set aside in favour of the assessee. The assessing authority may initiate separate assessment proceedings for the respective tax periods after affording due opportunity.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service used for development and export of technology/know-how.

Analysis: The identical issue had already been determined in the assessee's own earlier matters. The service was rendered over a period during which the assessee had contractual rights to supervise and monitor the research and development activity. Such participation constituted use and consumption of the input service. The fact that the service invoice and its subsequent export bore the same date did not establish that the service had been exported without use.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service was admissible to the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest paid on customs duty was refundable where the importer paid the duty beyond three days from removal of the system inability.

Analysis: The applicable advisory permitted a refund of interest only where duty and interest were paid within three days of the stipulated date of removal of system inability. For an importer not registered on ICEGATE, that date was the date of registration and receipt of portal credentials. The appellant registered on 09.08.2023 but paid duty only on 09.11.2023, and therefore did not satisfy the prescribed condition for interest waiver.

Conclusion: The interest paid is not refundable; the claim for waiver fails.

Issues: Whether exemption for investment of long-term capital gains in a residential property can be denied where completion, delivery and registration of the property occur beyond the stipulated period for reasons beyond the assessee's control.

Analysis: Section 54F is a beneficial provision intended to promote investment of capital gains in a residential house and must receive a liberal construction. Its essential requirement is investment of the capital gains towards purchase or construction of the residential property; completion of construction, occupation, delivery or registration within the prescribed period is not indispensable where the assessee has made the investment and the delay is attributable to the developer.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54F notwithstanding delayed completion, delivery and receipt of legal title to the residential villa due to factors beyond the assessee's control.