Issues: Whether pending civil and arbitral proceedings concerning operational-credit claims, which had not crystallised into determinable and quantifiable claims before approval of the resolution plan, survived the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The final list of operational creditors quantified the disputed claims at a notional value of Re.1 and did not preserve them subject to the outcome of pending proceedings. The resolution plan, which had attained finality, provided that the settlement corpus available to relevant operational creditors was payable pro rata only for crystallised and approved claims within the stipulated period. Its provisions, read harmoniously, discharged and extinguished pre-effective-date liabilities and required pending proceedings by operational creditors to be withdrawn, abated, settled or extinguished. The clean slate and fresh start principles preclude indeterminate claims from resurfacing after plan approval. There was no ambiguity warranting application of contra proferentem or adoption of a face-value reservation mechanism.

Conclusion: Pending civil and arbitral claims that had not crystallised by approval of the resolution plan stood abated, waived, withdrawn and extinguished; the operational creditors were entitled to no amount beyond their quantified Re.1 claims. The issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the Special Leave Petitions seeking bail were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

Issues: Whether the extended limitation period for recovery of service tax for 2016-17 was validly invoked, and whether the penalty for suppression was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant, though registered, neither filed ST-3 returns nor disclosed gross receipts, taxable receipts, exempt receipts, abatements, or its service-tax liability for the relevant period. Statutory returns required disclosure of gross receipts before deductions or exemptions could be claimed. The failure to respond to departmental requests for records further prevented verification. The prescribed statutory manner for disclosure could not be replaced by an undisclosed claim of abatements, and a party could not derive advantage from its own default. These circumstances established deliberate suppression of taxable receipts with intent to evade service tax, warranting invocation of the extended period. Since suppression justifying the extended period stood established, the penalty was consequentially justified.

Conclusion: The extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was validly invoked, and the penalty under Section 78 of that Act was sustainable; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether tax was leviable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on imported cars claimed to have been sold in the course of high seas sales; (ii) Whether the Tribunal could restore the assessment of tax for breach of conditions under G.O.Ms.No.381 despite no departmental appeal against the first appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether tax was leviable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on imported cars claimed to have been sold in the course of high seas sales.

Analysis: The import and sale records showed that the dealer's sale invoices were raised after the cars entered Indian territory and from its Tamil Nadu factory address. The dealer paid customs duty, while no reliable evidence established that title passed while the cars were on the high seas. Transport documents did not prove that the sales occurred before entry into the customs frontier or outside Tamil Nadu. The place of transfer, in the absence of contrary evidence, was determinable from the sale invoices.

Conclusion: The sales were not high seas sales and were taxable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could restore the assessment of tax for breach of conditions under G.O.Ms.No.381 despite no departmental appeal against the first appellate order.

Analysis: The exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.381, issued under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, required the purchased goods to be used for the declared manufacturing purpose; its third proviso imposed tax where the goods were otherwise disposed of. The dealer failed to establish that the goods purchased against declarations were used in manufacture or correlate them with exports. The exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was unavailable to a dealer that had obtained the State exemption by declaration and breached its conditions. The Tribunal was entitled, in the dealer's appeal, to correct the apparent legal error in substituting compounding fees for the tax consequence expressly prescribed by the exemption notification.

Conclusion: The Tribunal rightly restored the assessment of tax for violation of the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.381. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claimed import-sale exemption and the conditional exemption for locally purchased goods were unavailable on the established facts, and the tax liability under the State regime remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer that avails a conditional State tax exemption on a declaration must satisfy its stipulated use condition; upon breach, the prescribed tax consequence applies and cannot be displaced by an alternative export-sale claim or compounding mechanism.

Issues: (i) Whether project completion for anti-profiteering purposes is reckoned from the application for, or actual issuance of, the occupancy certificate; (ii) Whether the investigation period was correctly confined to 01.07.2017 to the date of occupancy certificate; (iii) Whether the revised methodology and quantification of profiteering were legally sustainable; (iv) Whether homebuyers were identifiable recipients requiring restitution under Rule 133(3)(b), rather than deposit under Rule 133(3)(c); and (v) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was leviable.

Issue (i): Whether project completion for anti-profiteering purposes is reckoned from the application for, or actual issuance of, the occupancy certificate.

Analysis: A project is completed only upon actual grant of the occupancy certificate by the competent authority. Mere filing of an application does not establish completion. The occupancy certificate was issued during the GST period and input tax credit was availed until that date, establishing that the project continued post-GST.

Conclusion: Project completion is reckoned from actual issuance of the occupancy certificate, not from the application date. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the investigation period was correctly confined to 01.07.2017 to the date of occupancy certificate.

Analysis: Construction services supplied before issuance of the occupancy certificate remain taxable, whereas post-certificate sale of building is outside taxable supply and constitutes exempt supply for input tax credit purposes. As no admissible input tax credit benefit survives for post-certificate sales, anti-profiteering computation must end on issuance of the occupancy certificate.

Conclusion: The investigation was correctly restricted to 01.07.2017 to 13.10.2017. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the revised methodology and quantification of profiteering were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The project fell within the category where construction commenced before GST but continued after GST, and purchasers who paid before GST remained entitled to the benefit of post-GST input tax credit. The revised computation used Chartered Accountant-certified purchase and credit data, compared pre-GST and post-GST credit ratios, calculated per-square-foot savings, and confined the calculation to the period before occupancy certification. It quantified the base benefit at Rs. 2,38,495 and GST thereon at Rs. 28,619.

Conclusion: The revised methodology and total profiteering quantification of Rs. 2,67,114 were sustainable. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether homebuyers were identifiable recipients requiring restitution under Rule 133(3)(b), rather than deposit under Rule 133(3)(c).

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(c) is a narrow residuary mechanism applicable only where recipients are genuinely incapable of identification. Non-participation in proceedings, present untraceability, or resale of flats does not make recipients unidentifiable where the supplier's transaction, allotment, payment, and contact records disclose their identities. The general statutory remedy is restitution to identifiable recipients with interest.

Conclusion: The homebuyers were identifiable, and the profiteered amount must be refunded to them individually with interest at 18% per annum. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was leviable.

Analysis: The investigation period preceded the effective date of Section 171(3A). Penal provisions cannot operate retrospectively absent express legislative mandate.

Conclusion: No penalty under Section 171(3A) is leviable for the relevant period. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additional post-GST input tax credit benefit was required to be passed on to the identifiable homebuyers through commensurate price reduction and restitution with statutory interest, while the subsequently introduced penalty provision could not govern the pre-2020 period.

Ratio Decidendi: In a real-estate anti-profiteering matter, the benefit of post-GST input tax credit must be computed only until actual issuance of the occupancy certificate and passed to identifiable purchasers; the residuary consumer welfare fund mechanism applies only where identification is genuinely impossible, and a later penal provision cannot be retrospectively applied.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on input services used for setting up a manufacturing plant after deletion of the expression "setting up" from the inclusive part of the definition of input service with effect from 01.04.2011.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 contains a means clause, an inclusive clause and an exclusion clause. Services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture fall within the means clause. Services required for erection, commissioning, installation and fabrication of plant and machinery, technical consultancy, recruitment, information technology, transportation of inputs and capital goods, security, clearing and forwarding, and related business activities had a direct nexus with manufacture because the factory could not be established for production without them. The deletion of "setting up" from the inclusive clause does not exclude services independently covered by the means clause; denial arises only where the service is specifically covered by the exclusion clause. The disputed services were not related to construction of a building or civil structure and were not otherwise excluded.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the disputed services used for setting up the plant is admissible; the assessee is entitled to the credit, and the demand, interest and penalty are unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether additions in unabated assessment years under Section 153C could survive without being founded on incriminating material seized during search; (ii) Whether the assessments were valid where the satisfaction recorded under Section 153C did not conform to the statutory requirements regarding material belonging to the third party and its bearing on determination of total income.

Issue (i): Whether additions in unabated assessment years under Section 153C could survive without being founded on incriminating material seized during search.

Analysis: The additions for the unabated years were found not to be based on any specific seized or incriminating material. The absence of such material rendered the additions impermissible in assessments initiated pursuant to search.

Conclusion: The additions for the unabated years were unsustainable and stood deleted, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessments were valid where the satisfaction recorded under Section 153C did not conform to the statutory requirements regarding material belonging to the third party and its bearing on determination of total income.

Analysis: Section 153C distinguishes between seized assets that belong to a third party and seized books, documents or information that pertain to or relate to that party; these statutory categories cannot be treated as interchangeable. Further, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer's satisfaction did not expressly record that the seized material had a bearing on determination of the assessees' total income. Such satisfaction was deficient under the statutory jurisdictional conditions.

Conclusion: The Section 153C assessments for both abated and unabated years were invalid and were quashed, in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The search assessments were annulled, and the consequential challenges on factual additions and other legal grounds did not require adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C requires a statutory-compliant satisfaction identifying qualifying seized material and expressly recording its bearing on determination of the third party's total income; unabated-year additions additionally require incriminating material.

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting of income under section 270A could be sustained where a part of income was reclassified from capital gains to dividend income, but the returned and assessed total income remained identical and the reclassification reduced the tax liability.

Analysis: Section 270A(2) identifies circumstances constituting under-reporting. A mere change in the head under which an already disclosed receipt is assessed does not establish suppression or under-reporting of income. The assessee had disclosed the relevant income, the aggregate assessed income did not exceed the returned income, and the Revenue did not controvert that the reclassification resulted in lower tax liability. The explanation for reporting the receipt as capital gains was not found false, attracting the protection for a bona fide explanation supported by disclosure of material facts under section 270A(6)(a). Penalty under section 270A is discretionary and is not automatic merely because income is recharacterised.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 270A was not leviable on the reclassification of disclosed capital gains as dividend income; the penalty was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Special Leave Petitions should be entertained when the matter stood remanded to the Single Judge for determination of residual issues.

Analysis: The earlier dismissal of the departmental Special Leave Petition did not cause merger of the High Court decision with the Supreme Court order. Since residual grounds remained pending before the Single Judge, the exemption issue was not finally adjudicated. Any subsequent decision favourable to the assessee could be produced before the Single Judge and could govern the pending proceedings.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were closed, reserving liberty to challenge the reference order after disposal of the matter by the Single Judge.

Issues: Whether a consolidated show cause notice and consequential order covering multiple financial years are legally sustainable.

Analysis: Binding decisions of the High Court had established that proceedings for distinct assessment years cannot be initiated through a composite notice. The impugned notice and order covered the financial years 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 together and were therefore inconsistent with that principle.

Conclusion: The consolidated show cause notice and consequential order for multiple financial years were invalid and were quashed; separate notices may be issued for the respective assessment years, with the specified period excluded for limitation purposes.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants established that software was imported against the foreign-exchange remittances, so as to negate the alleged contravention; (ii) Whether the company's CEO and Director was personally liable for the company's contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants established that software was imported against the foreign-exchange remittances, so as to negate the alleged contravention.

Analysis: For non-physical software imports, the applicable Master Circular required certification that the software had actually been received, apart from keeping Customs authorities informed. The intimation furnished to Customs was not proof of import or acceptance of its contents. The Chartered Accountant's report pre-dated the claimed import and was a valuation report for acquisition and financing, not a certificate of actual receipt. The later IT expert certificate, based on CDs supplied by the company, did not prove import at the relevant time and itself recorded that one program set was non-functional. The evidence therefore failed to establish import of software corresponding to the remitted amount. The absence of a specified cross-examination request or resulting prejudice also did not invalidate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The alleged import was not proved; the contravention by the company stood established, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the company's CEO and Director was personally liable for the company's contravention.

Analysis: The individual appellant was CEO, Director, shareholder and joint authorised signatory for the company's bank accounts and outward-remittance documents. His statement acknowledged that the software received was without value. No evidence showed that he exercised due diligence to prevent the contravention.

Conclusion: The individual appellant was vicariously liable for the company's established contravention, against the individual appellant.

Final Conclusion: The finding of contravention and the individual appellant's liability were sustained, while the monetary penalties were substantially reduced in view of financial hardship.

Ratio Decidendi: In a non-physical import transaction, an intimation to Customs and documents not certifying actual receipt of the imported software do not discharge the importer's burden to prove import; an officer in charge of the company who authorised the remittances is liable absent proof of due diligence.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16, initiated through notices issued after 1 April 2021, were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Revenue's recorded concession applicable to Assessment Year 2015-16 required all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 to be dropped because they could not be completed within the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The original notice was issued on 21 June 2021 and the consequential notice on 21 May 2022. Binding decisions applying that concession treated such notices as time-barred.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and consequential reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction; the reassessment order was quashed as bad in law, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For Assessment Year 2015-16, reassessment notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 are time-barred under the applicable limitation regime and cannot sustain reassessment proceedings.

Issues: (i) Whether attached assets forming part of an approved resolution plan could be restored to the Successful Resolution Applicants under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the Corporate Debtor was entitled to protection under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether attached assets forming part of an approved resolution plan could be restored to the Successful Resolution Applicants under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The parties agreed that Section 8(8) is intended to restore attached property to bona fide claimants having a legitimate interest. The Successful Resolution Applicants had assumed the position of the Corporate Debtor following successful completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. A consensual restitution arrangement was therefore accepted under the second proviso to Section 8(8).

Conclusion: The attached bank balances and residential units covered by the resolution plan were directed to be restored and released to the Successful Resolution Applicants. The enforcement authority was held to have no right or lien over those assets or other assets forming part of the approved resolution plan.

Issue (ii): Whether the Corporate Debtor was entitled to protection under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The statutory protection was applied to the Corporate Debtor following resolution, while preserving proceedings against erstwhile directors, persons in control, conspirators and abettors. The protection remained conditional upon the Successful Resolution Applicants having no connection with the erstwhile management and not being beneficiaries of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The Corporate Debtor was directed to be deleted from the prosecution complaint, subject to the statutory conditions under Section 32A; proceedings against the erstwhile management and other liable persons were to continue.

Final Conclusion: The consent-based restitution protected the assets transferred under the implemented resolution plan while preserving investigation and enforcement proceedings against the erstwhile management. Questions of law were expressly kept open and the order was not to operate as a precedent.

Issues: Whether the notice issued for assessment under the Black Money Act was barred by limitation under the applicable CBDT Guidelines.

Analysis: Information concerning the non-disclosure of the foreign asset was available to the Department upon issuance of the information notice in April 2019 and, in any event, to the Assessing Officer when reopening reasons were recorded in March 2021. The applicable CBDT Guidelines required issuance of a notice under section 10(1) preferably within 30 days from the end of the relevant previous year; delay required written reasons and approval of the competent authority. The notice issued in March 2022 was beyond the prescribed timeline, with no recorded reasons or approval supporting the delay. The administrative instructions were binding on the Revenue.

Conclusion: The notice under section 10(1) was barred by limitation; the consequential proceedings were null and void, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could sustain deletion of penalty solely because the underlying assessment orders had been quashed, when the orders quashing those assessments had subsequently been set aside.

Analysis: The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against deletion of penalty only because it regarded the assessment orders as having been quashed. The orders by which the Tribunal had quashed the assessments were subsequently set aside in connected appeals and therefore no longer supported the Tribunal's basis for disposing of the penalty matter. Since the Tribunal had not considered the penalty proceedings on their merits or the other legal issues, fresh consideration was necessary.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order deleting the penalty on the sole basis of quashed assessments was set aside, and the penalty matter was remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits and legal issues.

Issues: (i) Whether remittances made for staging the cricket tournament in South Africa constituted current account transactions or capital account transactions; (ii) whether the dedicated South African account and reimbursements to the service provider contravened foreign-currency-account and borrowing-or-lending restrictions; (iii) whether the post-tournament remittance from the EEFC account was permissible; (iv) whether delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds attracted liability; (v) whether non-repatriation of pouring-rights revenue attracted liability; (vi) whether credit of ticket-sale and VAT-refund proceeds to the EEFC account was impermissible; (vii) whether the authorised dealer bank and its officer were liable for processing the remittances; and (viii) whether the adjudication was vitiated by denial of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether remittances made for staging the cricket tournament in South Africa constituted current account transactions or capital account transactions.

Analysis: A capital account transaction requires an alteration of assets or liabilities, including contingent liabilities, outside India of a person resident in India. The agreement obligated the South African cricket body to provide stadia, tournament facilities and related services, for which fixed consideration and operational expenses were payable. The tournament and services were certain; absence of a detailed budget and payment in instalments did not create a contingent liability. Payments made during the agreement period were therefore connected with services in the ordinary course of business. No remittance was shown to have been made before the agreement was executed.

Conclusion: The remittances made during the agreement period were current account transactions, not capital account transactions, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the dedicated South African account and reimbursements to the service provider contravened foreign-currency-account and borrowing-or-lending restrictions.

Analysis: The dedicated account was used to meet expenditure incurred in conducting the tournament and did not establish an impermissible overseas account of the Indian entity. Payments to the service provider represented reimbursement of expenditure incurred for tournament services. There was no loan arrangement, repayment obligation or interest component to support a finding of borrowing or lending in foreign exchange. The statutory exemption concerning foreign exchange acquired for services was applicable.

Conclusion: The findings of contravention concerning the dedicated account and alleged borrowing or lending were set aside, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the post-tournament remittance from the EEFC account was permissible.

Analysis: Drawals from an EEFC account are exempt from prior-approval requirements under the Current Account Transactions Rules, subject to specified exceptions not applicable here. However, the amount properly due to the service provider in the accounts was substantially lower than the remittance made. The excess remittance was unsupported by the recorded liability.

Conclusion: Liability for the excess EEFC remittance was sustained against the principal entity and the responsible secretary and treasurer, against those appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds attracted liability.

Analysis: Ticket-sale proceeds were repatriated only after a delay exceeding a year from the end of the agreement. The asserted mingling of funds and settlement issues did not adequately justify the prolonged delay. Since the proceeds were eventually repatriated, the original penalty was disproportionate.

Conclusion: Contravention for delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds was sustained, but the penalties were substantially reduced; liability was set aside as against the suspended IPL chairman and retained at reduced levels against the principal entity, secretary and treasurer.

Issue (v): Whether non-repatriation of pouring-rights revenue attracted liability.

Analysis: The governing agreement did not confer an enforceable right on the Indian entity to receive pouring-rights revenue. The claim was resisted by stadium owners under the prevailing arrangement, and there was no established amount due or accrued which the Indian entity was obliged to realise and repatriate.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention concerning pouring-rights revenue and the related penalties were set aside, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (vi): Whether credit of ticket-sale and VAT-refund proceeds to the EEFC account was impermissible.

Analysis: The credit represented ticket-sale proceeds and VAT refund receivable under the agreement. The adjudicating authority incorrectly conflated that inward credit with a separate outward remittance made towards final tournament expenses. The receipt was a bona fide foreign-exchange earning and could not be treated as an impermissible EEFC credit.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention and penalty concerning the EEFC credit were set aside, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (vii): Whether the authorised dealer bank and its officer were liable for processing the remittances.

Analysis: The remittances were current account transactions for which prior RBI permission was not required. The authorised dealer processed them after receiving the agreement, Form A-2 declarations and chartered accountant certificates, and the RBI raised no objection after reporting. These circumstances also satisfied the statutory safeguard requiring reasonable satisfaction by an authorised dealer.

Conclusion: The findings and penalties against the authorised dealer bank and its officer were set aside, in favour of those appellants.

Issue (viii): Whether the adjudication was vitiated by denial of natural justice.

Analysis: The record disclosed repeated hearing dates, adjournments sought by the noticees, written submissions and cross-examination of relevant witnesses. The final hearing was also fixed under a timeline directed by the High Court. The refusal of further requests did not establish denial of a fair opportunity.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice was rejected, against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: Most findings and penalties arising from the characterisation of the tournament arrangements and related foreign-exchange transactions were annulled, while liability was confined to the unsupported excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds, with reduced penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment for definite services under an agreement does not become a capital account transaction merely because the expenditure was unbudgeted or paid in instalments; a contingent liability requires an uncertainty in the underlying obligation, not merely uncertainty in its quantification.

Issues: Whether revaluation of an existing tenancy right through book entries, without acquisition of a new asset or inflow of funds, constitutes unexplained investment taxable under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 69 applies where an assessee has made an unrecorded investment and fails to explain its nature and source. The tenancy right had been continuously held since 1984; its revaluation was recorded in the books by corresponding entries in the asset and partners' capital accounts. No fresh asset was acquired, no funds or consideration were introduced, and no depreciation was claimed on the revalued amount. Revaluation merely reflects fair value and does not create real income. It also involves no sale, relinquishment, extinguishment, distribution, or other transfer within Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The revaluation entry did not constitute an unexplained investment under Section 69; the addition was unsustainable and liable to be deleted.

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on a company director for contraventions under the foreign-exchange regime warranted enhancement merely because it was below the statutory maximum.

Analysis: The statutory ceiling of up to three times the quantified sum involved prescribes only a maximum penalty and neither fixes a penalty nor mandates its imposition at the maximum level. The adjudicating authority retains discretion to determine the appropriate penalty judicially on the facts and evidence. The impugned order had evaluated the relevant material, and no basis was established to show that its discretion was exercised improperly or that the penalty was disproportionately low.

Conclusion: Enhancement of the penalty was not warranted; the issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Issues: Whether a consolidated/common show cause notice covering multiple tax periods is permissible under the GST enactments.

Analysis: The governing precedent had determined that a consolidated/common show cause notice is permissible. Since the proceedings remained at the stage of response to the notice, the appropriate course was to restore the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of objections and further adjudication in accordance with law.

Conclusion: A consolidated/common show cause notice for the relevant tax periods is valid; the issue is decided against the assessee.