Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's cross-objections could challenge adverse portions of the order beyond the limited grounds raised in the Revenue's appeals; (ii) Whether the declared import values could be rejected on the basis of alleged control by the Malaysian entity, related-party relationship, parallel/proforma invoices, and alleged excess foreign-exchange remittances; (iii) Whether the revised retail sale price basis for additional customs duty was sustainable; (iv) Whether ConyTakara was classifiable as a medicament under CTH 3004 or as a skin-care preparation under CTH 3304.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's cross-objections could challenge adverse portions of the order beyond the limited grounds raised in the Revenue's appeals.

Analysis: Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 permits a respondent, notwithstanding that it has not independently appealed, to file cross-objections against any part of an order once an appeal against that order is filed. Such cross-objections must be disposed of as an appeal. The provision is not confined to rebutting only the grounds set out in the opposing party's appeal.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were maintainable and could challenge the substantive adverse findings in the impugned order.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared import values could be rejected on the basis of alleged control by the Malaysian entity, related-party relationship, parallel/proforma invoices, and alleged excess foreign-exchange remittances.

Analysis: No evidence established that shares were allotted to, or that administrative or financial control over the importer was exercised by, Conybio Malaysia. The alleged parallel invoices were proforma invoices and were unsupported by evidence of flowback or remittance exceeding the declared invoice values. The Malaysian suppliers and the Indian importer, being distinct juridical entities, could not be treated as family members under Rule 2(2)(viii) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 merely because of relationships among their directors or shareholders. Nor was any other statutory basis for related-party treatment or proof that a relationship influenced price established. Consultancy payments were found to relate to services rendered and investment earnings could not be treated as additional import consideration.

Conclusion: Rejection of the declared transaction values and the consequential undervaluation demand were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the revised retail sale price basis for additional customs duty was sustainable.

Analysis: The documentary invoices allegedly forming the basis for revised retail sale prices were not supplied to the importer, causing prejudice to its defence. Further, for the relevant pre-01.03.2008 period, no statutory machinery existed under Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for post-import redetermination of the retail sale price of imported goods.

Conclusion: The additional customs duty demand based on revised retail sale prices was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether ConyTakara was classifiable as a medicament under CTH 3004 or as a skin-care preparation under CTH 3304.

Analysis: ConyTakara was a transdermal foot patch intended to provide therapeutic relief, detoxification and improved blood circulation. Its primary character was curative rather than cosmetic or for enhancement of appearance. The product therefore fell within the scope of medicaments, including transdermal administration systems, and did not satisfy the description of beauty or skin-care preparations.

Conclusion: ConyTakara is classifiable as a medicament under CTH 3004 and not under CTH 3304, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The findings supporting undervaluation, related-party influence, retail sale price-based assessment, confiscability, and penalty lacked legal and evidentiary foundation; consequential relief follows.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value cannot be displaced on suspicion arising from proforma invoices, familial links between persons behind separate corporate entities, or unrelated remittances, without legally cognisable related-party status and evidence of additional consideration influencing the import price.

Issues: Whether unadjudicated interest and damages under the provident fund law, not determined before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, must be provided for in an approved resolution plan.

Analysis: Provident fund dues may stand excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, interest and damages under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which had neither been determined nor become final before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, are contingent and uncrystallized liabilities. A resolution plan may make a lump-sum provision for such liabilities in the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, but absence of such provision does not by itself violate the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The resolution applicant is entitled to certainty regarding liabilities assumed under the plan, and approval of a Committee-approved plan may be declined only on the limited grounds under Section 30(2) of that Code.

Conclusion: Uncrystallized claims for interest and damages need not be included in the approved resolution plan; exclusion of those claims was valid and the issue is decided against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Unadjudicated statutory interest and damages that remain uncrystallized on the commencement date of the corporate insolvency resolution process are contingent liabilities, and their omission from a Committee-approved resolution plan does not contravene the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issues: Whether medical circumstances warranted grant of bail pending consideration of the regular bail petition by the High Court.

Analysis: The medical board reported that the petitioner was clinically stable, while advising continued medical management and angiography for further evaluation. The regular bail petition was already listed before the High Court, and an undertaking was recorded that appropriate treatment, including angiography if required, would be ensured.

Outcome: The special leave petition seeking bail on medical grounds was dismissed, without any opinion on the merits of the pending bail petition.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was contractually entitled to retain the balance security deposit on the alleged loss of input tax credit arising from defective VAT invoices; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the refunded security deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent was contractually entitled to retain the balance security deposit on the alleged loss of input tax credit arising from defective VAT invoices.

Analysis: The appellant established the foundational facts of completion and acceptance of the works, expiry of the relevant retention period, and demand for refund. The evidentiary onus consequently shifted to the respondent to prove the alleged invoice defects, actual denial and quantification of input tax credit, causation, and a contractual right to recover the alleged loss from the security deposit. The respondent had accepted and processed the invoices, deducted VAT, and issued Form VAT 156, yet produced no tax assessment, audit material, rejection communication, or reliable computation establishing that input tax credit was denied solely due to the appellant's invoices. Its own records also contained an inconsistency concerning the applicable tax rate. Clauses governing the security deposit permitted recovery only of loss, damage, compensation, or other sums shown to be contractually payable due to the contractor's default; they did not authorise an unproved adjustment for an alleged statutory consequence. The respondent's failure to timely address any alleged invoice defect after accepting the invoices could not be shifted to the appellant.

Conclusion: The respondent had no established contractual right to withhold Rs. 36,64,474 from the security deposit; the appellant was entitled to its refund. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the refunded security deposit.

Analysis: The contract excluded interest while the security deposit was validly retained. However, the five-year performance guarantee period ended on 30.10.2018, after which the purpose of retention ceased and continued withholding became wrongful. In the absence of a contractual stipulation for the claimed rate of 18% per annum, a commercial rate of 9% per annum was found just and equitable from 31.10.2018 until realisation.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to interest at 9% per annum from 31.10.2018 until realisation, but not at 18% per annum. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decree dismissing the claim for refund was set aside, and the appellant obtained recovery of the withheld security deposit with interest at the reduced rate.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a contractor establishes completion, expiry of the retention period, and entitlement to refund, the employer must prove the contractor's default, the resulting loss, and contractual authority for any deduction from the security deposit; an unsubstantiated alleged tax-credit loss cannot justify retention.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for continuous non-filing of returns should be set aside and registration restored upon compliance with return-filing and payment obligations.

Analysis: The cancellation was founded solely on non-filing of returns, without any allegation of a dubious process for tax evasion. Continued cancellation would prevent the registered person from conducting business and issuing invoices, thereby impairing determination and recovery of the tax liability. A pragmatic course was therefore warranted, consistent with the requirement that outstanding returns be filed and consequential tax, interest, fine and penalty be paid.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was set aside conditionally; registration is to be restored if the petitioner files all default-period returns and pays the requisite tax, interest, fine and penalty within the stipulated period.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order under the GST law could stand where the notices and reminders omitted the date, time and venue of personal hearing, no effective hearing opportunities were afforded, and the order was non-speaking.

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, while Section 75(6) requires the order to state the relevant facts and basis of decision. The show-cause notice and all reminders recorded no date, time or venue for personal hearing. The petitioners' selection of "No" in the hearing column did not dispense with the statutory obligation to provide an effective hearing before an adverse determination. The two-line order also failed to disclose reasons or consideration of the material placed in reply.

Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order was invalid for breach of natural justice and for being non-speaking; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment order could stand where the assessee was allowed only three days to respond to the show-cause notice and its subsequent grievance seeking a hearing was not considered.

Analysis: The show-cause notice, issued on a Sunday, allowed only three days for a response. The assessee thereafter submitted its reply and grievance requesting a video-conference hearing, but the assessment order was passed without considering them. Such limited time did not constitute a reasonable opportunity, and the grievance concerning inadequate time required consideration before completing the assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment order was vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice; the assessee was entitled to a fresh assessment after an adequate opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing where permissible in law.

Issues: Whether the complaint and process for prosecution for wilful attempt to evade payment of tax under Section 276C(2) were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 276C(2) requires a deliberate, intentional and conscious attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest; mere delay or failure to pay, without mens rea, does not satisfy the penal provision. The assessee had declared its income, repeatedly sought time owing to business closure, made periodic payments with interest, and discharged the entire liability before the complaint proceedings materially progressed. The complaint did not identify any specific wilful act or circumstance demonstrating an attempt to evade payment. The order issuing process also failed to account for these material facts and reflected no proper scrutiny of whether the offence was prima facie made out.

Conclusion: The essential ingredients of a wilful attempt to evade tax were not disclosed; the criminal complaint and the process issued against the petitioners were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether foreign tax credit can be denied solely because Form 67 was furnished after the prescribed due date.

Analysis: The return was filed within time, and Form 67 had been uploaded before the rectification application was considered. The delay in furnishing Form 67 was treated as a procedural, technical and venial lapse. The applicable legal position is that delayed furnishing of Form 67 does not, by itself, justify denial of an otherwise admissible foreign tax credit.

Conclusion: The delay in filing Form 67 was condoned, and the assessee was entitled to verification and grant of admissible foreign tax credit in accordance with law.

Outcome: Revenue appeal dismissed under the Government litigation policy on account of the monetary threshold.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on steel, cement, welding electrodes and gases used in fabricating structural works and support structures connected with cement and power plants for the period before 07.07.2009.

Analysis: The materials were used for fabrication of foundations, platforms, supports, conveyor structures, galleries, pipelines, chimneys and related structures required for installation and functioning of capital goods. Their eventual embedding in earth did not negate their use, directly or indirectly, in relation to manufacture. The exclusion introduced with effect from 07.07.2009 was not clarificatory or retrospective; therefore, it could not govern credit taken before that date.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the specified materials used for the stated structural and support works before 07.07.2009 is admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Delay condoned; Special Leave Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

Issues: Whether delay in releasing the refund determined under Form No. 4 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 warranted further directions concerning payment and systemic refund processing.

Analysis: The stated non-availability of the processing module and engagement in time-barring proceedings did not adequately explain the prolonged non-credit of the refund. Although the Scheme excludes statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that exclusion does not justify administrative delay. The matter was considered significant in view of recurring refund-delay cases and the need for a functional mechanism following issuance of Form No. 4.

Outcome: Further time was granted and the matter was listed for 06.08.2026; a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the CBDT for verification and appropriate systemic action.

Issues: Whether the addition for purchases from an unverified supplier should be estimated at 12.5 per cent or at a lower profit rate.

Analysis: The corresponding sales, stock records and quantitative movement were accepted, and payments were made through banking channels. However, the supplier could not be verified or produced, its GST registration stood cancelled, and the assessee could not conclusively establish procurement from the named supplier. Therefore, only the profit or saving embedded in purchases from an unverified source was taxable. The rate of such profit depends on the nature of trade, disclosed margins, evidence and facts of the relevant year; an estimate adopted in an earlier year does not mechanically govern a subsequent year without identical material facts. In the low-margin ferrous and non-ferrous metals trade, the disclosed net-profit margin and comparable decisions supported estimation at 2 per cent.

Conclusion: The addition was restricted to 2 per cent of the disputed purchases, and the balance addition was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether delayed furnishing of the audit report in Form 10B disentitled a registered charitable trust from exemption for application of income where the report was available before processing of the return.

Analysis: The trust's charitable status and registration were undisputed, and the audit report had been furnished before processing under section 143(1). The requirement was satisfied where the report was available to the assessing authority while processing the return. The rule concerning a declaration for opting out of an exemption under section 10B was distinguishable, since that declaration directly affected the return and assessment at the outset; the governing principle was that an audit report furnished before completion of assessment sufficiently supports a deduction or exemption claim.

Conclusion: Delayed filing of Form 10B did not bar the trust's claim for exemption of its application of income; the relief granted was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases was taxable or only the profit element embedded therein; (ii) Whether the difference between contract income reflected in Form 26AS and turnover recorded in the accounts warranted an addition.

Issue (i): Whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases was taxable or only the profit element embedded therein.

Analysis: The declared turnover was not disturbed and could not have been generated without corresponding purchases. In the absence of proof that no actual purchases were made or that the recorded sales lacked nexus with materials procured, taxation of the entire alleged purchase amount was unwarranted. Estimation of the profit embedded in such transactions at 12.5% was found justified.

Conclusion: Only 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases was liable to be added, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the difference between contract income reflected in Form 26AS and turnover recorded in the accounts warranted an addition.

Analysis: The difference represented advance payments received for contractual work, recorded as a liability and offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year. The related carry-forward of tax deducted at source and subsequent income recognition supported this treatment.

Conclusion: The turnover difference did not constitute taxable income for the relevant year, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions contested by the Revenue were not restored, and the relief based on profit estimation and deferred recognition of contractual advances remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recorded sales are accepted and actual procurement is not disproved, an addition for alleged bogus purchases is confined to the profit element embedded in those purchases; contractual advances taxable in a later year do not create taxable turnover in the year of receipt.

Issues: Whether belated furnishing of Form No. 10, where it was available before processing of the return, disentitles a charitable trust from claiming exemption for accumulated income under Section 11(2).

Analysis: The requirement to furnish Form No. 10 is mandatory, but compliance is sufficient where the prescribed information is available to the Assessing Officer before completion of assessment. Since Form No. 10 was on record when the return was processed, delay beyond the due date under Section 139(1) could not, by itself, justify denial of the exemption. The claim nevertheless required verification on its merits, including the relevant factual conditions for accumulation.

Conclusion: Belated filing of Form No. 10 alone does not bar the claim under Section 11(2) where the form was available before assessment; the claim must be reconsidered on merits.

Issues: Whether the estimated addition for profit allegedly arising from suppressed sales could survive after the GST appellate authority found no evidence of clandestine removal or unrecorded sales.

Analysis: The addition was founded exclusively on information from the GST authorities concerning alleged suppressed sales. The GST appellate order, after verification of seized material against regular books, found no evidence of interstate movement, clandestine removal, unaccounted raw materials, actual removal, sales, sale proceeds, transportation, or other corroborative material. No independent material beyond the GST information supported the income-tax addition.

Conclusion: The estimated addition for alleged undisclosed profit was deleted in favour of the assessee.