Issues: Whether the uncommunicated adjudication order must be served in accordance with the prescribed statutory mode and the effect of withdrawal of bank-account recovery proceedings.

Analysis: The authorities acknowledged that the adjudication order had not been uploaded on the portal and that the petitioner remained uninformed of it. The recovery notice issued to the bank was withdrawn, restoring normal operation of the account. Questions concerning limitation for passing or challenging the order were expressly left open.

Outcome: The respondents were directed to serve the adjudication order in accordance with the statutory requirement, and any applicable limitation for challenge shall run from its service.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand order should be entertained despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: A statutory appeal against the challenged adjudication order is available before the Appellate Authority. No basis was found to bypass that remedy in writ jurisdiction. To preserve access to the appellate remedy, the period spent pursuing the writ petition was directed to be excluded in computing limitation, provided the appeal is filed within the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal; the writ petition was not entertained.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution alleging fraudulent issuance of invoices and wrongful passing of input tax credit under the GST law.

Analysis: The material evidence had been secured, including financial assets, computer devices and the electronic ledger. The applicant had remained in custody since April 2026; the prosecution rested on documentary evidence; further custodial detention was unnecessary; the maximum prescribed sentence was five years; and early completion of the criminal case was unlikely.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to regular bail.

Issues: Whether the Proper Officer had jurisdiction to issue a consolidated show cause notice and pass a consolidated adjudication order for multiple financial years under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 contain no bar against combining different financial years in a single show cause notice or a single adjudication order. The jurisdictional challenge was governed by the earlier ruling that a Proper Officer is empowered to issue and determine such consolidated proceedings.

Conclusion: The consolidated show cause notice and consolidated Order-in-Original for the financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20 were within the Proper Officer's jurisdiction; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of GST registration, without specifying the provisions allegedly breached or the material particulars of non-compliance, is legally sustainable.

Analysis: The notice merely referred to non-compliance with unspecified provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Rules, without identifying the particular statutory or rule-based obligations allegedly violated. A notice lacking such material particulars is vague and cannot sustain cancellation proceedings.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was quashed as legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a consolidated show cause notice and a consolidated adjudication order may validly cover multiple financial years under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Sections 73(1) and 74(1) contain no prohibition against issuance of a consolidated show cause notice for different financial years, and Sections 73(9) and 74(9) similarly do not prohibit a consolidated order. The Proper Officer consequently possessed jurisdiction to issue the notice and adjudicate the tax demand for the relevant financial years in one consolidated proceeding. The challenge to the merits of the adjudication was not determined and remains available in the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: A consolidated show cause notice and consolidated order for multiple financial years are valid; the jurisdictional challenge fails, in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: Whether deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A could be denied after the Revenue treated the return of income as valid.

Analysis: A return treated as valid by the Revenue could not simultaneously be acted upon in a manner that denied the claimed deduction on the basis of non-verification. Such mutually inconsistent treatment was impermissible.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the Chapter VI-A deduction claimed in the return of income.

Issues: (i) Whether the royalty paid to the associated enterprise for export sales could be separately benchmarked under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method by applying the domestic royalty rate; (ii) Whether transfer-pricing adjustments for commission paid to associated enterprises were sustainable on the basis of database comparables; (iii) Whether long-term capital gains were correctly computed with reference to the first year of holding and transfer expenses; (iv) Whether the additional claim of exemption for investment in plant and machinery under section 54G could be rejected for want of a revised return; (v) Whether relief was available in respect of a provision reversed in a subsequent assessment year; (vi) Whether commission paid to non-resident agents was disallowable for non-deduction of tax at source; and (vii) Whether disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the royalty paid to the associated enterprise for export sales could be separately benchmarked under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method by applying the domestic royalty rate.

Analysis: Royalty for technical know-how was intrinsically connected with the assessee's manufacturing operations, and the aggregated benchmarking under the Transactional Net Margin Method showed arm's-length operating margins. The domestic royalty arrangement could not constitute a reliable comparable for export sales without establishing comparability of commercial terms, geographical markets, sales volumes and business conditions.

Conclusion: The royalty adjustments for both assessment years were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether transfer-pricing adjustments for commission paid to associated enterprises were sustainable on the basis of database comparables.

Analysis: The commission expenditure was connected with overseas marketing and sales support. The agreements selected under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method were not shown to be comparable in functions, risks, contractual obligations, geographical conditions and commercial circumstances; such comparability requires a high degree of similarity. The assessee's aggregated Transactional Net Margin Method benchmarking and the selected comparables therefore required fresh examination.

Conclusion: The commission adjustments for both assessment years were remitted for fresh benchmarking after allowing the assessee to furnish relevant material and comparables.

Issue (iii): Whether long-term capital gains were correctly computed with reference to the first year of holding and transfer expenses.

Analysis: The conveyance deed was registered and the asset capitalised in financial year 2002-03; indexation from that year was therefore proper. However, the transfer expenses required item-wise verification because certain expenses could relate exclusively to leasehold land while others could be common to land and building.

Conclusion: The indexation claim was rejected; allocation of transfer expenses, with consequential depreciation, was remitted for verification.

Issue (iv): Whether the additional claim of exemption for investment in plant and machinery under section 54G could be rejected for want of a revised return.

Analysis: The assessee had already made a claim under section 54G and sought enhancement on the basis of investment details. The restriction on an assessing authority entertaining a fresh claim without a revised return does not curtail appellate powers, and a claim for statutory relocation relief cannot be rejected solely on that procedural basis.

Conclusion: The claim was remitted for verification of the statutory conditions governing the investment in plant and machinery.

Issue (v): Whether relief was available in respect of a provision reversed in a subsequent assessment year.

Analysis: The accounting entries and their treatment in the subsequent assessment year required verification to determine whether the amount had been reversed or offered to tax and to prevent double taxation.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted for verification and grant of appropriate relief, if warranted.

Issue (vi): Whether commission paid to non-resident agents was disallowable for non-deduction of tax at source.

Analysis: Commission for procuring export orders and marketing support rendered outside India was not taxable merely because it was paid by an Indian resident where the agents had neither rendered services in India nor had a business connection or permanent establishment in India. The statutory amendment relied upon did not establish taxability of these payments on the facts.

Conclusion: The deletion of disallowance of non-resident agent commission was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee's own funds exceeded its investments, raising the presumption that investments were made from own funds absent proof of a nexus with borrowings. No contrary nexus was established, and no specific satisfaction as to the incorrectness of the assessee's claim was recorded.

Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance relating to exempt income was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The royalty adjustments and the challenged disallowances were not sustained, while the commission benchmarking, specified capital-gains expenditure, section 54G investment claim and provision-reversal claim require fresh factual determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A Comparable Uncontrolled Price benchmark is unsustainable unless reliable functional and economic comparability is established, and disallowance relating to exempt income cannot rest on borrowed-fund assumptions where sufficient own funds exist without recorded satisfaction and contrary nexus evidence.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice for the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation under the substituted reassessment regime; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period was unavailable because the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh; (iii) Whether additions for alleged bogus penny-stock sale proceeds and estimated commission expenditure were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice for the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation under the substituted reassessment regime.

Analysis: The original notice was deemed to be a notice under the statutory pre-notice procedure. Only 21 days of the available limitation period remained when it was issued. The subsequent pre-notice communication and reply did not extend the final date beyond 28 June 2022, whereas the reassessment notice was issued on 19 July 2022.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was time-barred and the consequential reassessment was void. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period was unavailable because the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: The alleged escaped income was Rs. 49,99,851, although the sale consideration was Rs. 50,44,986. The statutory threshold for invoking the extended period concerns the income alleged to have escaped assessment, not the gross sale consideration.

Conclusion: The extended limitation period was inapplicable; the reassessment notice issued after three years was without jurisdiction. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether additions for alleged bogus penny-stock sale proceeds and estimated commission expenditure were sustainable.

Analysis: The additions rested principally on the abnormal increase in share price, investigation material and inferences based on human conduct. The evidentiary record did not establish that the assessee's transaction was an accommodation entry or that unaccounted money had been introduced. The applicable precedent requires cogent material connecting the assessee to the alleged scheme; suspicion and preponderance of probabilities cannot displace documentary evidence without such corroboration.

Conclusion: The deletion of the additions was justified. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment lacked jurisdiction on limitation grounds, and the substantive additions were independently unsustainable for want of cogent evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued after expiry of the applicable statutory limitation is void, and an addition alleging fictitious penny-stock gains cannot rest solely on suspicion, price movement, or general investigation material without cogent evidence linking the assessee to an accommodation-entry arrangement.

Issues: (i) Whether the classification of ONT/ONU and OLT under Customs Tariff Item 8517 62 90 contained an error apparent on the record; (ii) Whether rectification was required concerning the applicability of exemption notifications, consideration of the telecom expert report, and the finding of liability to confiscation.

Issue (i): Whether the classification of ONT/ONU and OLT under Customs Tariff Item 8517 62 90 contained an error apparent on the record.

Analysis: ONT/ONU receive broadband data through optical fibre and transmit it to subscriber devices through cables or Wi-Fi; OLTs similarly receive and transmit data between the internet service provider and subscribers. Such functions place the goods within the specific six-digit sub-heading for machines for reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of data. The residual sub-heading 8517 69, including entries for subscriber end equipment, cannot apply once the goods fall within sub-heading 8517 62. The coordinate-bench decision was distinguishable because the functions of the goods there were not evident. An advance ruling applies only to the applicant concerned and did not govern the classification in this case.

Conclusion: The classification of ONT/ONU and OLT under Customs Tariff Item 8517 62 90 contains no error apparent on the record and is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rectification was required concerning the applicability of exemption notifications, consideration of the telecom expert report, and the finding of liability to confiscation.

Analysis: The exemption notifications required consideration in their form applicable during the respective periods of dispute. The expert report relied upon by the assessee could be examined or cross-examined in the remand proceedings; there was no basis to require its acceptance without such examination. Although no goods had actually been confiscated and no consequential penalty had been imposed, the challenged finding of liability to confiscation required a fresh decision.

Conclusion: The exemption claims and the finding of liability to confiscation are to be reconsidered by the Commissioner, with the applicable notifications and expert evidence being addressed afresh; this is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tariff classification determination remains undisturbed, while the exemption eligibility and confiscation aspects require fresh adjudication on the corrected basis.

Issues: (i) Classification of oven-roasted pistachios and almonds; (ii) Classification of oven-roasted cashew nuts; (iii) Availability of preferential basic customs duty exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.

Issue (i): Classification of oven-roasted pistachios and almonds.

Analysis: Heading 2008 covers nuts otherwise prepared or preserved, while the relevant HSN Explanatory Notes expressly include almonds and other nuts that are dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted. Roasting is distinct from the drying and preservation processes contemplated in Chapter 8. Applying the tariff terms, HSN guidance and common trade understanding, roasted almonds and pistachios fall within the entry for other roasted nuts and seeds.

Conclusion: Oven-roasted pistachios and almonds are classifiable under CTI 2008 19 91, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Classification of oven-roasted cashew nuts.

Analysis: CTI 2008 19 10 specifically describes cashew nuts that are roasted, salted or roasted and salted. A specific tariff entry must apply in preference to a residual entry. Roasting produces a product distinct from raw or merely dried nuts and is covered by Heading 2008.

Conclusion: Oven-roasted cashew nuts are classifiable under CTI 2008 19 10, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Availability of preferential basic customs duty exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.

Analysis: The notification benefit is contingent upon proof, to the satisfaction of the competent customs officer, that the imported goods originate in the specified country under the applicable ASEAN-India preferential rules of origin and the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020.

Conclusion: The notification benefit is available only upon satisfactory proof of the prescribed preferential origin, in favour of the assessee subject to fulfilment of that requirement.

Final Conclusion: The roasted pistachios, almonds and cashew nuts receive the stated tariff treatment, while preferential duty treatment remains dependent on establishing qualifying origin. No ruling was issued on roasted areca nuts because that classification question had already been decided by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Roasted nuts, being products prepared by a process distinct from drying or preservation under Chapter 8, are classifiable under Heading 2008; where a specific roasted-nut tariff entry exists, it prevails over a general or residual entry.

Issues: (i) Whether the Corporate Debtor was denied a fair opportunity of hearing before admission of the financial creditor's insolvency application. (ii) Whether a pending scheme of compromise and arrangement and ongoing settlement negotiations required deferment of the insolvency application. (iii) Whether pending counterclaims, asserted receivables and commercial viability barred admission upon establishment of financial debt and default.

Issue (i): Whether the Corporate Debtor was denied a fair opportunity of hearing before admission of the financial creditor's insolvency application.

Analysis: The Corporate Debtor had filed pleadings and written submissions and was afforded repeated opportunities to advance oral submissions. Its right to address oral arguments was closed only after it failed to utilise those opportunities, including a further opportunity afforded following a change in Bench composition. The adjudication proceeded on the available pleadings, documents and written submissions rather than ex parte. Fair opportunity does not require indefinite adjournments where a party has adequately participated but fails to argue.

Conclusion: There was no violation of the principles of natural justice and no procedural infirmity in deciding the insolvency application on the record.

Issue (ii): Whether a pending scheme of compromise and arrangement and ongoing settlement negotiations required deferment of the insolvency application.

Analysis: A scheme under Sections 230-232 remains a proposal until approved in accordance with law and made binding. Settlement negotiations and unsuccessful one-time settlement proposals do not create a legal embargo on an insolvency application. The settlement proposal had failed for want of the stipulated upfront payment, and the statutory process could not be kept pending indefinitely upon uncertain future negotiations.

Conclusion: The pending scheme and settlement negotiations did not bar or require postponement of admission of the insolvency application.

Issue (iii): Whether pending counterclaims, asserted receivables and commercial viability barred admission upon establishment of financial debt and default.

Analysis: The jurisdictional enquiry is confined to the existence of financial debt, occurrence of default and completeness of the application. The credit facilities, default, classification of accounts as non-performing assets and acknowledgments through settlement proposals established debt and default. The counterclaim before the debt recovery forum remained undecided and could not displace the established default. Claimed receivables, future arbitral recoveries, commercial viability and business hardship do not override the statutory insolvency framework, which itself provides for resolution while preserving the corporate debtor as a going concern.

Conclusion: Pending counterclaims, prospective recoveries and asserted viability did not preclude admission once financial debt and default were established.

Final Conclusion: The admission of the Corporate Debtor to the corporate insolvency resolution process was legally sustainable, and the connected challenges to the procedural orders furnished no basis for appellate intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: Once financial debt and default are established under Section 7, unapproved compromise proposals, ongoing settlement negotiations, and undecided counterclaims do not ordinarily justify deferral of insolvency admission; adequate repeated opportunities satisfy natural justice even where oral argument is subsequently closed for non-utilisation.

Issues: Whether the application for initiation of insolvency resolution process against the personal guarantor under Section 95 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The corporate debtor's part-payment on 03.02.2021 was undisputed. Under the deed of guarantee, a part-payment by the borrower bound the guarantor; further, the guarantor's liability was co-extensive with that of the principal borrower. The earlier dismissal of the recovery application for default did not extinguish the underlying debt or make the Section 95 proceeding non-maintainable.

Conclusion: The Section 95 application instituted on 28.09.2023 was within limitation and was maintainable against the personal guarantor.

Issues: Whether gratuity and leave encashment payable to an employee who superannuated during the corporate insolvency resolution process constitute insolvency resolution process costs.

Analysis: Section 5(13) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 employs an exhaustive definition of insolvency resolution process costs. Apart from the resolution professional's remuneration, the enumerated categories concern expenses actually incurred by the resolution professional during the insolvency resolution process. Gratuity accrues as a terminal benefit upon cessation of employment and is not an expense incurred by the resolution professional; it is also not equivalent to salary payable for services during the process. Leave encashment likewise cannot be included in insolvency resolution process costs and must be addressed under the resolution-plan framework and payment priority prescribed by the Code.

Conclusion: Gratuity and leave encashment do not form part of insolvency resolution process costs; the issue is decided against the appellant.

Issues: Whether, pending the appeal, suspension of a resolution professional's registration for misconduct alleged in one CIRP could operate across all other assignments without an opportunity of hearing concerning those assignments.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires Board confirmation for appointment or replacement of a resolution professional, while Regulation 13(7) contemplates communication of disciplinary action to the committees of creditors in other ongoing assignments. The blanket suspension was prima facie disproportionate, undermined the respective committees' statutory role, and affected the appellant's other assignments without a hearing on conduct in those assignments. The appellant established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The wider appellate scope under Section 220(7) was left for determination in the main appeal.

Outcome: The suspension was stayed insofar as it barred the appellant from acting in assignments other than the CIRP in which he had been removed; the Board may communicate its order to the respective committees of creditors for their decision.

Issues: (i) Whether the Section 7 application was validly authorised by the partnership firm notwithstanding objections by one surviving partner and the intervention of a deceased partner's legal representative; (ii) Whether the asserted financial debt and default entitled the appellant to initiate insolvency proceedings within limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the Section 7 application was validly authorised by the partnership firm notwithstanding objections by one surviving partner and the intervention of a deceased partner's legal representative.

Analysis: Under the partnership deed, the death of a partner did not dissolve the firm, and a nominee of the deceased partner could join only upon acceptance by the surviving partners. As the legal representative had not been admitted as a partner, he lacked standing to intervene in the insolvency proceeding. Decisions concerning the firm's business could be taken by a majority under the partnership deed and Section 12(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The decision of two of the three surviving partners to commence the proceeding was therefore binding. A partner acting in the firm's name could institute the application because each partner is an agent of the firm, and neither Rule 4 nor Form 1 required signatures of every partner. Any challenge to the majority decision lay before the competent civil forum.

Conclusion: The Section 7 application was validly authorised; the objection to its institution fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the asserted financial debt and default entitled the appellant to initiate insolvency proceedings within limitation.

Analysis: The corporate debtor's balance sheets classified the appellant as a sundry creditor, and the ledger and Form 1 showed amounts advanced and repayable by the corporate debtor. Absence of a formal loan agreement or an interest stipulation did not negate the existence of a debt, and the principal amount exceeded the statutory threshold. However, the last transaction was on 31.03.2019, furnishing the nearest ascertainable point for default and limitation. The subsequently asserted default date of 30.05.2022 was unsupported by the record. As the Section 7 application was filed after expiry of the limitation period reckoned from the last transaction, the debt was time-barred.

Conclusion: The Section 7 application was not maintainable because the claim was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: Although the initiation of proceedings was duly authorised and the amount constituted a debt, insolvency jurisdiction could not be invoked for a time-barred claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A Section 7 insolvency application founded on an otherwise established financial debt cannot be maintained after expiry of limitation, and an unsupported later date of default cannot extend the limitation period.

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on specified services used for authorised operations of an SEZ unit can be denied because the services were not wholly consumed within the SEZ.

Analysis: Section 26(1)(e) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 grants service-tax exemption for taxable services provided to an SEZ unit for authorised operations. Notification No. 17/2011-Service Tax dated 01.03.2011 regulates that exemption through a refund mechanism where tax has been paid. The requirement concerning services being wholly consumed within the SEZ applies only to the option of obtaining ab initio exemption; it does not restrict refund of tax paid on specified services actually used for authorised operations. The notification permits proportionate restriction only where services are shared between SEZ and DTA operations, and no such sharing was established. The services were approved specified services and no finding established that they were unconnected with authorised operations. The SEZ Act prevails over inconsistent restrictions under the Finance Act, 1994 or notifications issued thereunder.

Conclusion: Refund of Rs.13,37,485 on services used for authorised operations could not be denied merely because those services were not wholly consumed within the SEZ; the assessee was entitled to that refund.

Issues: Whether the balance VAT payable at 12.5% on pre-2010 sales of pressure cookers must be computed on the original sale price on which 4% VAT was initially collected, or by treating the gross amount inclusive of the earlier VAT as the revised tax-inclusive consideration.

Analysis: Under the definitions of output tax, sale price, gross turnover and taxable turnover, VAT is chargeable on the sale price exclusive of tax charged or chargeable. The earlier 4% VAT had been collected and paid on the stated sale price of Rs.100. Recomputing the sale price as Rs.91 to accommodate the subsequently determined 12.5% rate would disconnect the computation from the original taxable sale price and artificially reduce the differential tax liability. Computing the total 12.5% VAT and the balance 8.5% liability on Rs.100 does not amount to levying VAT on VAT, because the levy remains on the original sale price and not on the tax component.

Conclusion: The balance 8.5% VAT is payable on the original sale price on which the earlier 4% VAT was paid; the tax-inclusive recomputation advanced by the assessee is impermissible.