Issues: Whether goods detained in transit, where the petitioner claims ownership, must be released under Section 129(1)(a) rather than Section 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governs release of detained goods and conveyances. The applicable precedent established that, where the person seeking release is the owner of the goods, the release mechanism under Section 129(1)(a) applies; valuation cannot be enhanced for this purpose, and the penalty is to be determined with reference to the invoice and e-way bill. The record disclosed no basis to depart from that position.

Conclusion: The goods are required to be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a notice and demand order under the GST law issued in the name of a deceased proprietorship taxpayer are valid.

Analysis: Section 74(1) authorises issuance of notice to the person chargeable with tax, while an individual proprietor falls within the definition of "person" under Section 2(84). The taxpayer had died before issuance of both the notice and the consequential demand order, and this factual position was undisputed. The proceedings were thus initiated and concluded against a person who was no longer in existence.

Conclusion: The notice and demand order issued against the deceased taxpayer were without jurisdiction and void; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a demand of tax, interest and penalty exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits a demand in the adjudication order from exceeding the amount specified in the notice and prohibits confirmation on grounds other than those stated in the notice. The notice specified a composite proposed demand of Rs. 78,059.50, whereas the impugned order raised Rs. 8,63,486.24 towards tax, interest and penalty. The demand was therefore ex facie beyond the notice.

Conclusion: The demand order was invalid for contravention of Section 75(7) and was set aside.

Issues: Whether prosecutions for wilful failure to furnish returns pursuant to search-assessment notices could be quashed under inherent jurisdiction when the alleged non-supply of seized material and the existence of wilful default were disputed factual matters.

Analysis: The alleged requests for search and seizure material, their receipt by the Department, supply of the material to the authorised representative, and the petitioner's ability and intention to furnish returns within the stipulated period were contested. The record did not prima facie establish that a request for the material had been made before expiry of the period prescribed in the notice. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to evaluate disputed evidence, determine the accused's factual defence, or decide the existence of wilful default or mens rea; those matters require adjudication on evidence at trial.

Conclusion: Quashing was not warranted; the disputed factual defences concerning wilful failure to file returns must be determined by the Trial Court.

Issues: Whether the dismissed writ petition should be restored to enable a challenge to Section 147-A and the reassessment proceedings.

Outcome: The review application was allowed, the earlier dismissal was set aside, and the writ petition was restored with liberty to amend; reassessment proceedings were stayed during its pendency.

Issues: Whether consequential corrections in the GST returns for Financial Year 2017-18 could be permitted after amendment of the export shipping bills and corresponding corrections in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

Analysis: The original grievance concerning amendment of the shipping bills and correction of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B stood redressed under the earlier orders. On the peculiar facts, including the delayed issuance of Customs amendment certificates, the parties agreed that consequential corrections in the GST returns should be allowed, without restricting the respondents' power to assess, verify or scrutinise the amendments independently.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to rectify the short reflection in GSTR-3B, reconcile the consequential GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch, and amend GSTR-9 for Financial Year 2017-18. Any consequential proceedings shall be decided on their merits and not rejected solely on limitation.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the second demand-cum-show cause notice and the resulting assessment order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The question whether the later proceedings were founded on material already available during the earlier audit requires factual and legal examination. That examination falls within the statutory jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, and the assessment order is amenable to appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained; the petitioner may pursue the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether a statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) is required for admission of an appeal concerning only penalty, where the show-cause notice and impugned appellate order pre-date the proviso effective from 01.10.2025.

Analysis: The pre-amendment provision required payment of admitted amounts and a prescribed percentage of the remaining tax in dispute. The proviso specifically requiring a ten per cent pre-deposit in penalty-only matters became effective on 01.10.2025. The proceedings, including the show-cause notice, original order and appellate order, arose before that date. The amendment contained no express or necessarily implied retrospective operation. Imposing the subsequently introduced condition would curtail the vested substantive right of appeal applicable when the proceedings commenced.

Conclusion: No pre-deposit under Section 112(8) is required for admission of the present penalty-only appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable on interest and dividend income from investments with cooperative societies and cooperative banks; (ii) whether the balance additional depreciation relating to machinery installed in the preceding year was allowable for Assessment Year 2016-17; and (iii) whether milk cans and artificial insemination and laboratory-testing equipment qualified as plant and machinery for additional depreciation.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable on interest and dividend income from investments with cooperative societies and cooperative banks.

Analysis: The issue stood covered by the earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Income received from investments in cooperative societies and cooperative banks satisfied the statutory requirement for deduction.

Conclusion: Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the balance additional depreciation relating to machinery installed in the preceding year was allowable for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Analysis: The third proviso permitting the unavailed balance of additional depreciation in the immediately succeeding previous year took effect from 1 April 2016. As the matter concerned Assessment Year 2016-17, the statutory entitlement applied.

Conclusion: The balance additional depreciation was allowable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether milk cans and artificial insemination and laboratory-testing equipment qualified as plant and machinery for additional depreciation.

Analysis: The issue was governed by an earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Milk cans had been treated as plant for normal depreciation and fell within the definition of plant; therefore, additional depreciation could not be denied where the remaining conditions were met.

Conclusion: The milk cans and relevant equipment qualified for additional depreciation. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The deductions and additional-depreciation claims sustained by the appellate authorities remained available to the assessee for the relevant assessment years.

Issues: Whether a writ court should direct consideration of representations against recommendatory anti-dumping final findings when no statutory duty to consider them exists and a statutory appeal would lie after notification.

Analysis: A direction to consider a representation cannot create a remedy not provided by law or compel an authority to decide a representation absent a statutory obligation. The anti-dumping final findings were recommendatory and had not resulted in a Central Government notification. Upon notification, the statutory appellate remedy before CESTAT would be available. The requested writ intervention was therefore premature.

Conclusion: No direction for consideration of the representations was warranted; the writ petition was premature and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the claim for tax concession was correctly classified as an expansion of an existing industrial unit rather than as a new industrial unit.

Analysis: The existing Sonepat unit had not availed any tax concession, and the application had been considered and allowed on merits rather than rejected for alleged suppression. The classification of the Gurugram unit under Rule 28C therefore required reconsideration in light of these facts and the applicable definitions.

Outcome: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication; entitlement to the claimed benefit was left open.

Issues: Whether uploading a show-cause notice or order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST Common Portal constitutes valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The prior rulings governing the issue were applied. The retrospective amendment concerning functions capable of being performed on the Common Portal does not authorise the portal to substitute formal service of a show-cause notice or order. The Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 do not provide for service of such notice or order merely through the Common Portal; electronic communication under the Rules does not validate portal uploading where the document itself is not duly served. Portal-only uploading may not be challenged where the assessee acknowledged receipt or contested the proceedings by filing a reply; however, an ex parte adjudication following portal-only uploading requires restoration to the show-cause-notice stage, while limitation for an appeal against a contested order does not commence from such uploading.

Conclusion: Uploading a show-cause notice or order-in-original only on the Common Portal does not by itself amount to valid service. The writ petition was governed by the relief and consequences laid down in the prior rulings.

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.