Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice and impose penalty under Section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice and impose penalty under Section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The applicable State circulars identify the officer competent to proceed under Section 122 by reference to Section 127 and confer jurisdiction upon the Deputy Commissioner in cases involving turnover exceeding Rs. 2.5 crores. The Central circular concerning allocation of functions under the Central and Integrated GST enactments did not displace the State-issued jurisdictional framework. The petitioner had also participated on merits before the issuing authority without objecting to jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issuing authority was prima facie not lacking jurisdiction; the issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Although a jurisdictional objection may be raised before a constitutional court at any stage, exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary. In the circumstances, including the absence of prima facie jurisdictional defect and the petitioner's prior participation in the proceedings, the doctrine of election warranted recourse to the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The petitioner must pursue the statutory appellate remedy; the issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty proceedings is to be pursued through the prescribed appellate mechanism, with the period spent in the writ proceedings eligible for exclusion under the applicable limitation law, subject to satisfaction of its requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the designated State tax officer has jurisdiction under the applicable statutory and administrative framework and an effective statutory appeal is available, discretionary writ jurisdiction need not be exercised merely because a jurisdictional objection is asserted after participation in the original proceedings.

Issues: Whether refund earlier re-credited as input tax credit could be paid in cash where the assessee had discontinued business and its Electronic Credit Ledger was non-functional.

Analysis: No statutory prohibition was identified against cash payment of the amount earlier directed to be re-credited as input tax credit. Since the assessee had ceased business operations and could not utilise the credit ledger, re-credit would confer no effective benefit.

Conclusion: The amount re-credited as input tax credit is to be refunded in cash to the assessee, with applicable interest, if any, in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether mandatory pre-deposit for a service-tax appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, may be paid by utilising CENVAT credit transitioned to the Electronic Credit Ledger under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 35F requires deposit of the prescribed percentage as a condition for entertaining an appeal but specifies no exclusive cash-payment mode. Validly earned CENVAT credit was available for pre-deposit under the earlier regime, and its transition under Section 140(1) preserved rather than extinguished that vested credit. Rule 142(3) recognises electronic payment of tax, interest and penalty through the prescribed mechanism. A pre-deposit, being an advance deposit of disputed tax, interest or penalty, can therefore be discharged from transitioned credit reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger.

Analysis: The administrative instruction prescribing cash payment through a designated portal regulated only procedure and did not prohibit use of transitioned credit. It could not override the statutory scheme, binding judicial precedent, or the vested right in validly transitioned credit. Debit of the Electronic Credit Ledger and credit of the amount to the Government sufficiently secures Revenue's interest and fulfils the pre-deposit requirement.

Conclusion: Transitioned CENVAT credit reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger is a valid source for payment of the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F in service-tax appeals; the petitioner's electronic-credit-ledger debit constituted valid compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribing pre-deposit does not mandate cash payment, validly transitioned input-tax credit may be utilised for that deposit, and an administrative instruction cannot restrict that statutory mode of payment.

Issues: Whether an ex parte adjudication based on a show cause notice uploaded only on the common portal warranted fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed ex parte after the show cause notice was uploaded on the web portal. The applicable principle is that portal upload alone, without acknowledgement of receipt or a response from the assessee, is insufficient service for sustaining an ex parte adjudication. The proceedings were therefore required to be restored to the show cause notice stage, with an opportunity to file a reply and be heard. The adjudicating authority may also consider the stated proceedings concerning alleged fraud.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication cannot stand on service solely through portal upload; the petitioner is entitled to fresh adjudication after an opportunity to submit a reply and be heard.

Issues: Whether a delayed statutory appeal against cancellation of GST registration, rejected solely as time-barred, should be reopened for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The adopted ruling recognizes that, although the Appellate Authority cannot itself condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit under Section 107, constitutional writ jurisdiction may be exercised in an appropriate case to prevent disproportionate hardship arising from denial of an effective appellate remedy. Cancellation of registration seriously affects the conduct of taxable business; where the delay is plausibly explained and no serious prejudice to revenue is shown, the merits of cancellation should be determined by the statutory appellate forum. Questions concerning the show-cause notice, service, cancellation and compliance are to remain open before that forum.

Conclusion: The delayed appeal shall be restored and adjudicated on merits without rejection on the ground of limitation.

Issues: Whether the Bright Line Test could sustain an adjustment for advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure.

Analysis: The Tribunal's rejection of the adjustment accorded with the binding decisions holding that the Bright Line Test is not a method sanctioned by law for determining an adjustment concerning advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure.

Conclusion: The advertising, marketing and promotion adjustment based on the Bright Line Test was rightly rejected, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could decide the assessee's appeal ex parte on merits without issuing and serving notice of the adjourned hearing.

Analysis: Rule 20 requires the Tribunal to fix the hearing with sufficient time for service of notice so that parties may appear and be heard. The matter had been adjourned on prior dates because the Tribunal did not function, and no notice of the hearing fixed thereafter was issued to the assessee. Proceeding to decide the appeal on merits without verifying service of notice constituted non-compliance with the Rule and resulted in failure of justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte appellate order was contrary to law and was set aside; the appeal was restored to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after notice to both parties, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether unpaid GST liability not debited to the profit and loss account or claimed as a deduction could be disallowed under Section 43B; (ii) Whether disallowance of payments claimed as reimbursement of legal and professional expenses was sustainable under Section 40(a)(ia).

Issue (i): Whether unpaid GST liability not debited to the profit and loss account or claimed as a deduction could be disallowed under Section 43B.

Analysis: Section 43B governs the allowance of specified deductions based on payment. The GST amount represented tax collected from customers and remained an outstanding liability; it was neither routed through the profit and loss account nor claimed as expenditure. A disallowance cannot be made of a deduction that was never claimed.

Conclusion: The GST liability was not disallowable under Section 43B; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance of payments claimed as reimbursement of legal and professional expenses was sustainable under Section 40(a)(ia).

Analysis: Although the payments to the Netherlands parent company were described in Form 15CA as reimbursement of expenses, no supporting material was produced to establish that they were actual reimbursements without any markup. The claimed character of the payments was therefore not substantiated.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the unsubstantiated reimbursement payments was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The GST addition was removed, while the disallowance relating to the claimed reimbursement payments remained sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory payment-based disallowance cannot be invoked where the relevant liability has not been claimed as a deduction in computing income.

Issues: (i) Whether profits attributable to the Indian dependent agency permanent establishment should be computed at 15% rather than 8.75% of advertisement revenue; (ii) Whether arm's length remuneration of the dependent agency permanent establishment precluded further profit attribution; (iii) Whether credit for tax paid by the Indian dependent agency permanent establishment in relation to advertisement income was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether profits attributable to the Indian dependent agency permanent establishment should be computed at 15% rather than 8.75% of advertisement revenue.

Analysis: The earlier mutual agreement procedure rate of 8.75% applied only to the years covered by that arrangement and could extend to later years only where facts and the scope of activities remained unchanged. Survey material showed that the Indian permanent establishment performed functions beyond those disclosed in the transfer-pricing study report. A higher attribution was therefore warranted, but 15% was found excessive and based on estimation.

Conclusion: Profit attribution to the Indian dependent agency permanent establishment is restricted to 12% of advertisement revenue, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether arm's length remuneration of the dependent agency permanent establishment precluded further profit attribution.

Analysis: Further attribution is ordinarily unnecessary where arm's length remuneration reflects all functions performed and risks assumed. That principle does not apply where the transfer-pricing analysis fails adequately to reflect the actual functions and risks of the permanent establishment. The Indian permanent establishment carried out functions beyond those reported in the transfer-pricing study.

Conclusion: Arm's length remuneration did not preclude further profit attribution, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether credit for tax paid by the Indian dependent agency permanent establishment in relation to advertisement income was allowable.

Analysis: Although the mutual agreement procedure did not bind years outside its express coverage, no material showed any factual basis to deny the credit where it had been accepted in principle for tax paid by the Indian permanent establishment in relation to advertisement income. Verification and quantification of the eligible credit remained necessary.

Conclusion: Credit for eligible tax paid by the Indian dependent agency permanent establishment is to be verified and quantified by the Assessing Officer, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The attribution rate is reduced, the claim that no residual attribution could arise is rejected, and the tax-credit claim requires verification and quantification.

Ratio Decidendi: A mutual agreement procedure outcome does not govern unlisted assessment years where the permanent establishment's actual functions differ materially, and arm's length remuneration does not eliminate further attribution when the transfer-pricing analysis fails to capture those functions and risks.

Issues: Whether brought-forward short-term capital losses, validly determined under the Income-tax Act in earlier years, must be set off against capital gains exempt in India under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement before they may be carried forward.

Analysis: Section 90(2) permits the assessee to elect, independently for each assessment year, the more beneficial regime between the Income-tax Act and the applicable tax treaty. Having elected treaty treatment for the relevant year, capital gains falling under Article 13 of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement were not taxable in India. Consequently, those gains did not enter the Indian computation mechanism for applying brought-forward losses under Section 74. The earlier losses had been claimed under the Act and allowed to be carried forward in the respective preceding assessment years; no contrary factual material or binding precedent was produced to displace that position.

Conclusion: Brought-forward short-term capital losses need not be adjusted against treaty-exempt capital gains and remain available for carry forward to subsequent years. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether imports of bulk drugs or active pharmaceutical ingredients, classifiable under Chapters 28 or 29, attract IGST at 5% under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Imported articles are liable to IGST under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at the rate applicable to like domestic supplies. The expression "drug" in the rate notification is undefined; therefore, its meaning was determined from Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Clause 2(b) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013. Those provisions include substances used as components of drugs, and consequently encompass bulk drugs and APIs used as such or as ingredients in formulations. Their import for testing, clinical trials, bioavailability, or bioequivalence studies does not alter their statutory character as drugs.

Analysis: Sl. No. 226 is a description-based entry for all drugs and medicines under Chapter 30 or any Chapter. The semicolon separates the coverage of drugs and medicines from formulations manufactured from bulk drugs; it does not confine the former to finished dosage forms. The expression "any Chapter" covers APIs falling under Chapters 28 and 29. As the specific description-based entry prevails over the general chapter-based entries for inorganic and organic chemicals, Sl. No. 226 governs the applicable IGST rate. The entry is a taxing rate notification, not an exemption notification.

Conclusion: Bulk drugs and APIs imported as drugs, including those imported for manufacture, testing, clinical trials, bioavailability, or bioequivalence studies, are liable to IGST at 5% under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, provided they are not covered by the nil-rated entry at Sl. No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Ratio Decidendi: Where APIs and bulk drugs satisfy the statutory definition of drugs, a specific description-based rate entry for drugs applicable to any chapter prevails over general chapter-based chemical entries.

Issues: (i) Whether services supplied as a subcontractor for construction of a reservoir dam and irrigation project qualified for exemption; (ii) Whether receipts were required to be treated as cum-tax amounts for service-tax computation; (iii) Whether service-tax demand was liable to reduction where reverse-charge provisions applied; (iv) Whether the demand based on higher receipts reflected in the profit and loss account and Form 26AS was unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether services supplied as a subcontractor for construction of a reservoir dam and irrigation project qualified for exemption.

Analysis: The relevant notification exempts qualifying construction services provided to the Government, a local authority or a Government authority in relation to dams and irrigation works. The services were supplied through a main contractor for a Government reservoir and irrigation project. The benefit available to the main contractor extends to a subcontractor where the qualifying service is ultimately provided for the exempt project.

Conclusion: The subcontracted services for the reservoir project are exempt from service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts were required to be treated as cum-tax amounts for service-tax computation.

Analysis: The impugned order had denied the statutory benefit of computing tax from gross amounts inclusive of service tax. The receipts were required to be treated as cum-tax receipts for determining taxable value.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to cum-tax benefit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether service-tax demand was liable to reduction where reverse-charge provisions applied.

Analysis: Reverse charge applies only to specified services. To the extent the appellant's services were chargeable under reverse charge and the liability fell on the service recipient, demand from the appellant must be reduced proportionately. The factual application of reverse charge required verification.

Conclusion: The tax liability must be reduced proportionately wherever reverse charge is found applicable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the demand based on higher receipts reflected in the profit and loss account and Form 26AS was unsustainable.

Analysis: The receipts reflected in the appellant's records and in Form 26AS exceeded the amounts on which service tax had been paid. The ground did not identify any particular error in the determination or explain the discrepancy.

Conclusion: The challenge to the demand based on the discrepancy in receipts is rejected, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Exempt turnover must be excluded and the remaining liability recalculated after allowing cum-tax treatment and accounting for any applicable reverse-charge liability; the corresponding penalty is to be adjusted proportionately.

Ratio Decidendi: A subcontractor is entitled to exemption for qualifying dam or irrigation works supplied through a main contractor for a Government project, and service-tax computation must give effect to cum-tax valuation and any applicable reverse-charge liability.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice issued for proceedings under Section 73(1) could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the assertion that GST had been paid to the supplier of rental services.

Analysis: The questions whether GST was paid to the supplier and whether the supplier duly furnished returns were factual matters falling for adjudication by the Proper Officer. The notice was founded on the Proper Officer's opinion regarding the existence of facts warranting proceedings under Section 73, and disclosed no jurisdictional error. The taxpayer may place its factual and legal contentions in its reply; the period during which the notice remained stayed was directed to be excluded for computing the limitation for an order under Section 73.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notice fails; no jurisdictional error is established. The finding is against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether continued sealing of the office premises after completion of search and seizure was authorised by Section 67(4) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the prohibitory order covering office equipment, files and other articles was valid under Section 67(2) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (iii) Whether seized books, documents and things could remain in the petitioner's custody.

Issue (i): Whether continued sealing of the office premises after completion of search and seizure was authorised by Section 67(4) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 67(4) empowers the officer authorised under Section 67(2) to seal or break open premises, containers or devices only where access is denied and for carrying out search and seizure. There was no material showing denial of access. The provision does not authorise continued sealing after completion of search or use of the premises as a place for retaining seized material.

Conclusion: The continued sealing of the office premises was illegal and unauthorised, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the prohibitory order covering office equipment, files and other articles was valid under Section 67(2) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 67(2), read with Rule 139(4), permits a prohibitory order only where confiscable goods cannot practicably be seized. The listed articles, including computers, laptops, files, printer, refrigerator, air conditioners, inverter and batteries, were office-use articles and were not goods liable to confiscation on the facts found.

Conclusion: The prohibitory order was invalid and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether seized books, documents and things could remain in the petitioner's custody.

Analysis: Books, documents and things seized under Section 67(2) are to remain with the authorised officer for so long as necessary for examination, inquiry or proceedings. Their return to the petitioner immediately upon seizure was inconsistent with that statutory scheme. If still required, the material could be taken into official custody upon issuance of a fresh seizure order relating back to the original seizure date.

Conclusion: Seized books, documents and things, if required for statutory proceedings, must be retained by the authorities rather than left in the petitioner's custody.

Final Conclusion: The search power under Section 67 is confined to its statutory purpose and cannot be used to continue sealing business premises or restrain dealings with articles that are not liable to confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to seal under Section 67(4) is ancillary to an ongoing search and is exercisable only upon denial of access; it does not authorise post-search sealing of premises for preservation or storage of seized material.

Issues: (i) Whether uncoated paper under tariff item 48025590 used for manufacture of exercise books and notebooks is covered by the exemption under Entry No. 128 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025; (ii) Whether purchaser declarations, purchase orders and contractual stipulations establish entitlement to that exemption and can be approved through an advance ruling.

Issue (i): Whether uncoated paper under tariff item 48025590 used for manufacture of exercise books and notebooks is covered by the exemption under Entry No. 128 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Entry No. 128 exempts uncoated paper and paperboard used for exercise books, graph books, laboratory notebooks and notebooks. The corresponding taxable entry in Schedule II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 excludes paper used for those specified purposes, creating a use-based distinction within Heading 4802. The exemption must nevertheless be construed according to its terms and applies only where the specified end-use is factually fulfilled.

Conclusion: Uncoated paper under tariff item 48025590 is exempt under Entry No. 128 when it is used for exercise books, graph books, laboratory notebooks or notebooks; it is not exempt merely by reason of its tariff classification. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether purchaser declarations, purchase orders and contractual stipulations establish entitlement to that exemption and can be approved through an advance ruling.

Analysis: The notification uses the expression "used for" and contains no deeming provision, prescribed certification process, bond, verification arrangement, monitoring mechanism or recovery procedure for diversion. Purchaser declarations and contractual documents may evidence intended use but do not conclusively establish actual end-use. Recognising them as determinative would introduce an evidentiary and compliance mechanism absent from the notification. The jurisdiction under Section 97(2) and Section 98 does not extend to creating such a procedure or prescribing standards for proving end-use.

Conclusion: Purchaser declarations, purchase orders and similar documents do not by themselves establish entitlement to exemption, and no advance ruling can be issued on the procedure or manner of availing it. This conclusion is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption remains conditional upon actual specified use, while the requested validation of documentary arrangements for establishing that use is unavailable under the advance-ruling jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: An end-use exemption must be applied strictly according to its text; absent statutory machinery deeming or verifying intended use, an advance-ruling authority cannot treat private declarations as conclusive proof or create a compliance mechanism.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year could validly be initiated on the basis of erroneous bank information alleging term deposits exceeding the statutory threshold for reopening beyond three years.

Analysis: The information forming the sole basis of the notice under Section 148A(b) was admittedly incorrect: the reported term deposit of Rs. 12.50 crore was actually Rs. 12.50 lakh due to a technical or system error by the bank. The actual alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh. Under the post-Finance Act, 2021 reassessment regime, reopening after three years is permissible only where the prescribed statutory conditions for the extended period, including evidence of escaped income represented in the specified manner amounting to at least Rs. 50 lakh, are fulfilled. A notice founded on materially false information could not constitute an effective show-cause notice or sustain reassessment jurisdiction beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148A(b), the consequential reassessment notice and orders, including the assessment and penalty orders, were invalid and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Modification of the interim direction restraining processing of income-tax returns filed by sitting judges under the new regime.

Analysis: The automated processing system could not independently identify returns filed by judges. Identification details were therefore required to be furnished so that the relevant returns could be excluded from processing, while avoiding disruption to processing of other returns. No final adjudication of the writ petition took place.

Outcome: The modification application was disposed of; the writ petition remains pending.

Issues: (i) Whether enhancement of the assessable value and consequential differential-duty demand based on valuation of identical goods were sustainable; (ii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for alleged misdeclaration were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether enhancement of the assessable value and consequential differential-duty demand based on valuation of identical goods were sustainable.

Analysis: The declared goods were brass scrap of ISRI specification 'Pallu', and the tariff coverage of brass scrap included several varieties of brass scrap. Neither the tariff nor the applicable specifications established that the length or uniformity of the brass tubes excluded them from brass scrap. The departmental assessment contradicted the chartered engineer's report on serviceability. Further, the authorities did not provide particulars or documentary evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods to support valuation under Rule 5.

Conclusion: Enhancement of value and the consequential differential-duty demand were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for alleged misdeclaration were sustainable.

Analysis: The departmental conclusion that the goods were serviceable pipes rather than declared scrap rested only on visual inspection and was not supported by expert evidence or material establishing misdeclaration. The expert report indicated that the imported tubes were rejected or discarded and not serviceable. In the absence of proof of misdeclaration, the statutory basis for confiscation and consequential penal action was not established.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessed customs liability, confiscatory consequences and penal consequences founded on the alleged misdeclaration and unsupported valuation were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared transaction value cannot be displaced under the identical-goods valuation method, nor can confiscation for misdeclaration be sustained, without reliable evidence of misdeclaration and contemporaneous identical-goods value; unsupported visual inspection cannot prevail over contrary expert material.

Issues: (i) Whether money-laundering proceedings survive where the original scheduled-offence FIR is quashed on the basis of a compromise; (ii) Whether the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply despite the original FIR involving a small amount; (iii) Whether parity with a co-accused granted bail was available; (iv) Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for grant of bail.

Issue (i): Whether money-laundering proceedings survive where the original scheduled-offence FIR is quashed on the basis of a compromise.

Analysis: An acquittal, discharge, or quashing on merits which establishes that no scheduled offence occurred negates the existence of proceeds of crime and consequential money-laundering action. A quashing based on compromise, however, does not determine that no criminal proceeds were generated. The alleged compromise was also prima facie doubtful, and the ECIR had been supplemented by 24 connected FIRs concerning the larger alleged fraud. The money-laundering investigation was not confined to the individual complainant's settled grievance.

Conclusion: The money-laundering proceedings survive notwithstanding compromise-based quashing of the original FIR.

Issue (ii): Whether the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply despite the original FIR involving a small amount.

Analysis: The proceeds of crime and the offence of money-laundering are not restricted to the amount stated in one predicate FIR. The statutory definition covers property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, and the Enforcement Directorate may investigate connected dealings with such proceeds beyond the scope or amount investigated by the predicate-offence agency.

Conclusion: Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applies.

Issue (iii): Whether parity with a co-accused granted bail was available.

Analysis: The co-accused's bail was granted on circumstances materially distinct from those attributed to the applicant. The available material prima facie identified the applicant as the principal operator of the forex and cash-conversion mechanism through entities allegedly controlled by him.

Conclusion: The applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused who was granted bail.

Issue (iv): Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for grant of bail.

Analysis: The material, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, banking transactions, alleged use of dummy directors, and cash and foreign-exchange dealings, prima facie disclosed a formidable case of involvement in laundering proceeds of crime. The applicant's non-disclosure of Enforcement Directorate summons while obtaining foreign-travel permission, alleged failure to comply with travel conditions, and attempted overseas travel supported the finding of flight risk. The applicant consequently failed both the conventional bail assessment and the statutory twin conditions requiring reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Conclusion: The applicant did not satisfy the conditions for release on bail.

Final Conclusion: Compromise-based closure of an individual predicate complaint does not extinguish a money-laundering investigation into an allegedly wider scheme, and the prima facie material and flight-risk assessment precluded bail.

Ratio Decidendi: A compromise-based quashing of a scheduled-offence case does not bar money-laundering proceedings unless it conclusively establishes that no proceeds of crime existed; bail under Section 45 requires satisfaction of both statutory twin conditions on the available material.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to trading activity; (ii) whether discussion of the doctrine of demurrer was necessary to decide the appeal.

Analysis: The Members concurred that credit exclusively attributable to trading activity was inadmissible, that the reversal required re-quantification under the prescribed trading formula, that the short-payment demand was time-barred, and that proportionate credit relating to rented premises used for taxable services was admissible. They differed on limitation: the Member (Technical) treated the Supreme Court-approved view on trading credit as requiring invocation of the extended period, whereas the Member (Judicial) considered the issue interpretational, noted the asserted disclosure in records and conflicting authorities, and concluded that the extended period and penalties were unavailable. The Members also differed on whether the doctrine of demurrer was germane.

Outcome: The divergent questions were referred to the President for constitution of the statutory mechanism for resolution by a Third Member.