Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution alleging fraudulent issuance of invoices and wrongful availment and passing of input tax credit under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The allegations concerned a network of entities issuing invoices without underlying supplies and generating substantial inadmissible input tax credit. The application recorded completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, as well as the period of judicial custody. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, discretionary bail was found appropriate.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to be released on bail.

Issues: Whether a writ order founded solely on a precedent subsequently reversed could stand when additional grounds had not been adjudicated.

Analysis: The sole basis on which the writ petition had been allowed no longer survived after the appellate reversal of the precedent relied upon. The remaining substantive grounds challenging the show-cause notice had not been addressed and required adjudication.

Conclusion: The writ order could not stand, and the unadjudicated grounds require determination by the Single Judge.

Issues: (i) Whether the amended formula under Rule 89(5) applies retrospectively to refund or rectification applications concerning earlier tax periods; (ii) Whether supplementary or differential refund claims for periods in respect of which original refund claims were processed are maintainable; (iii) Whether Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) can deny refund of eligible input tax credit accumulated before its effective date; (iv) Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 54.

Issue (i): Whether the amended formula under Rule 89(5) applies retrospectively to refund or rectification applications concerning earlier tax periods.

Analysis: The amendment introducing input-service input tax credit into the refund formula was treated as curative and clarificatory. The adopted judicial interpretation recognised its retrospective application to refund or rectification applications filed within the statutory period, notwithstanding the contrary prospective clarification in the departmental circular.

Conclusion: The amended Rule 89(5) formula applies retrospectively to the timely refund claims. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether supplementary or differential refund claims for periods in respect of which original refund claims were processed are maintainable.

Analysis: Neither Section 54 nor Rule 89 was found to contain a bar against a supplementary claim for a legally admissible differential amount. A prior refund application or a technical restriction in the electronic filing process cannot defeat a timely claim where substantive eligibility remains to be verified.

Conclusion: Supplementary or differential refund claims are maintainable, subject to verification of eligibility and quantum. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) can deny refund of eligible input tax credit accumulated before its effective date.

Analysis: The restriction effective from 18.07.2022 could not be extended through an administrative circular to deny refund of otherwise eligible input tax credit accumulated before that date. Statutory provisions prevail over an inconsistent departmental clarification.

Conclusion: The notification cannot be applied through the circular to deny refund of eligible pre-effective-date accumulated credit. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 54.

Analysis: Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax excluded the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 while computing limitation. On applying that exclusion, the claims fell within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The refund claims are within limitation. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The directions for sanction of the eligible differential refunds after arithmetical verification remain operative.

Ratio Decidendi: A curative amendment to the GST refund-computation formula applies to timely refund or rectification claims notwithstanding a contrary administrative circular.

Issues: (i) Applicability of the Rs. 20,00,000 monetary limit to the departmental appeal and computation of the disputed amount; (ii) Whether the Revenue established an exclusion from the monetary limit, including the effect of the Commissioner's approval under Section 112(3); (iii) Consequence of non-compliance with the monetary-limit regime for admission and maintainability of the appeal.

Issue (i): Applicability of the Rs. 20,00,000 monetary limit to the departmental appeal and computation of the disputed amount.

Analysis: Section 120 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorises monetary limits for departmental litigation. Circular No. 2425008 dated 05.07.2024 prescribed a Rs. 20,00,000 threshold for appeals before GSTAT, and the subsequent litigation-management framework continued that policy. Under the prescribed methodology, where tax is in dispute, the aggregate tax amount is relevant. The disputed tax demand was Rs. 1,90,080.

Conclusion: The monetary limit applied and the disputed amount was below the prescribed threshold, against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue established an exclusion from the monetary limit, including the effect of the Commissioner's approval under Section 112(3).

Analysis: Once the disputed amount falls below the threshold, the Revenue must identify and substantiate a specified exception. Administrative authorisation to institute an appeal is distinct from compliance with the monetary-limit policy. Where reliance is placed on the Commissioner's residual discretion under Section 112(3), the record must disclose a case-specific and reasoned exercise of that discretion. No material established any enumerated exception, recurring issue, adverse observation, or recorded opinion warranting departure from the threshold.

Conclusion: No applicable exception was established, and a bare assertion of the Commissioner's approval was insufficient, against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Consequence of non-compliance with the monetary-limit regime for admission and maintainability of the appeal.

Analysis: The statutory right of appeal is subject to conditions governing its exercise. Compliance with the applicable monetary-limit regime is a threshold requirement that must be determined before entering the merits; an arguable merits issue cannot cure the absence of maintainability.

Conclusion: The departmental appeal was not eligible for admission for adjudication on merits.

Final Conclusion: The binding monetary-limit litigation policy precluded merits adjudication of the below-threshold departmental challenge, leaving the underlying tax dispute undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental appeal below a valid monetary threshold cannot proceed unless the Revenue specifically establishes a recognised exception; generic administrative approval by the Commissioner does not satisfy that requirement.

Issues: Whether a departmental appeal involving a penalty below the prescribed monetary threshold can be admitted where no recognised exception to the monetary-limit policy is pleaded and established.

Analysis: Section 120 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits prescription of monetary limits for departmental appeals. The applicable departmental circulars fix a threshold of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before GSTAT and prescribe that, in a penalty-only dispute, the amount of penalty is to be considered. The disputed penalty of Rs. 88,074 was below that threshold. The monetary-limit framework remains operative through the subsequent litigation-management circular and is binding upon departmental officers. A statutory right of appeal under Section 112(3) is subject to the conditions regulating its exercise. Administrative approval or authorisation by the Commissioner does not, by itself, establish a recognised exception; the Revenue must identify the applicable exception and place material showing its application, including a specific recorded opinion where the residual exception is invoked. No such exception or case-specific exercise of residual discretion was established. Merits cannot be examined to cure a failure to satisfy the threshold condition for maintainability.

Conclusion: A departmental appeal below the prescribed monetary limit, without an established exception, is not maintainable and cannot be admitted for adjudication on merits.

Issues: Whether a departmental appeal involving disputed tax below the prescribed monetary threshold could be admitted when no recognised exception to the threshold was specifically established.

Analysis: Section 120 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the applicable departmental circulars imposed a monetary threshold of Rs. 20,00,000 for departmental appeals. The relevant disputed tax was Rs. 1,98,806, which was below that threshold. The burden of establishing a specified exception lay on the Revenue. A general approval or authorisation by the Commissioner did not establish compliance with the exception, since the record did not disclose a specific and reasoned exercise of the residual power under Section 112(3). The statutory right of appeal remained subject to the binding monetary-limit framework governing departmental litigation.

Conclusion: The departmental appeal was not maintainable for admission because the disputed amount was below the prescribed monetary limit and no applicable exception was established.

Issues: Whether an appeal confined to restoration of fine could be maintained after the first appellate authority set aside confiscation proceedings and the penalty imposed under Section 130 for excess or unaccounted stock.

Analysis: Sections 35(1) and 35(6) of the CGST/UPGST enactments require maintenance of prescribed accounts and provide that tax on unaccounted goods is to be determined by applying Sections 73 or 74. Excess or unaccounted bricks and coal found during survey could therefore be proceeded against under Sections 73 or 74, and not through confiscation proceedings under Section 130. Since the foundational proceedings under Section 130 had been set aside, the fine imposed in those proceedings could not survive independently.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative. Fine could not be sustained separately after the confiscation proceedings and penalty under Section 130 had been quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment-stage proceedings could continue when information required to reconcile the portal figures with earlier assessment records had not been supplied.

Analysis: The discrepancy arose from unreconciled figures in the Risk Management Strategy portal and prior assessment and payee records. At the stage under Sections 148A(1) and 148A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the relevant details had not been furnished and the inquiry was limited. The correctness and legality of initiating reassessment proceedings were expressly left open.

Outcome: The matter was returned to the notice stage for supply of information, an additional response, personal hearing, and a fresh order.

Issues: Whether an order revoking cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns could be sustained without ensuring payment of interest, late fee and penalty in addition to tax.

Analysis: The proviso to Rule 23(1) makes furnishing of pending returns and payment of tax, interest, penalty and late fee a statutory precondition for revocation where registration was cancelled for failure to furnish returns. Verification limited to filing of returns and payment of principal tax did not address the full statutory liability and constituted a jurisdictional and substantive error. Interest and late fee remained recoverable under the applicable statutory provisions through the prescribed recovery mechanism, and liability to penalty also arose under Rule 23.

Conclusion: The revocation order was modified to account for the unpaid statutory dues. The Department may recover interest and late fee, and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed. The finding is in favour of Revenue.

Issues: Whether detention proceedings, tax and penalty under Section 129 could be sustained where no specific contravention of the Act or Rules was alleged or established and the proceedings were conducted in breach of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 129 authorises detention, seizure and consequential tax and penalty only where goods in transit are transported or stored in contravention of the Act or Rules. The show-cause notice, order-in-original and appellate order did not identify any particular statutory or rule-based contravention, nor specify the allegedly defective documents. A vague notice deprived the appellant of an effective opportunity to meet the case against it. The inculpatory statements relied upon for alleging diversion of goods were not supplied, and the appellant was denied an opportunity to cross-examine their makers. Further, although a personal hearing was fixed for a later date, the order-in-original was issued before that hearing and recorded no submissions. The appellate order failed to address these material procedural objections and contained factual confusion regarding the source of the statements.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Section 129, having been initiated without a specific established contravention and in violation of the principles of natural justice, were unsustainable; the orders imposing tax and penalty were set aside with consequential relief.

Issues: (i) Whether Kerala Water Authority is a "local authority" under section 2(69) of the CGST Act, 2017 and whether the works-contract services supplied to it qualify for GST at 12% rather than 18%; (ii) Whether interest on the differential tax is payable on the portion discharged through the Electronic Credit Ledger.

Issue (i): Whether Kerala Water Authority is a "local authority" under section 2(69) of the CGST Act, 2017 and whether the works-contract services supplied to it qualify for GST at 12% rather than 18%.

Analysis: Section 2(69) contains an exhaustive list of entities qualifying as local authorities for GST purposes. Although section 3 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 deems Kerala Water Authority to be a local authority, it is a statutory body and does not fall within any category enumerated in section 2(69). Its GST registration classification does not alter that statutory position. The amended rate notification excluded works-contract services supplied to governmental authorities from the concessional rate available for supplies to local authorities.

Conclusion: Kerala Water Authority is not a local authority under section 2(69), and works-contract services supplied to it attracted GST at 18% from 01.01.2022. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the differential tax is payable on the portion discharged through the Electronic Credit Ledger.

Analysis: Differential tax remaining unpaid attracts interest under section 50(1). The differential liability was discharged partly through the Electronic Credit Ledger and partly through the Electronic Cash Ledger; interest was confined to the portion paid through the Electronic Cash Ledger.

Conclusion: Interest is payable only on the differential tax discharged through the Electronic Cash Ledger, and the interest demand attributable to tax paid through the Electronic Credit Ledger is dropped. This issue is in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The concessional GST treatment is unavailable because the recipient is outside the statutory definition of a local authority, while the delayed-payment interest liability is limited to the cash-paid component of the differential tax.

Ratio Decidendi: An entity does not qualify as a local authority for GST merely because a State law so describes it; it must fall within the exhaustive statutory definition applicable under the CGST Act.

Issues: Whether excess IGST paid on export supplies, owing to erroneous reporting of zero-rated exports in the GSTR-3B return and a subsequent duplicate payment to obtain automated export refund, is refundable.

Analysis: The export details and IGST liability were correctly reflected in the GSTR-1 returns, but the zero-rated export figures and corresponding tax were entered in the incorrect table of the GSTR-3B returns. Since the automated Customs system did not process refund because of the mismatch, the same IGST was paid again in a later return and that later payment alone was refunded through the automated mechanism. The earlier payment consequently remained an excess payment. The reporting error was a reconciled clerical error and did not negate the fact of duplicate payment. Retention of tax collected in excess of the amount lawfully due is impermissible under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Refund of the excess IGST paid on the export supplies is available and cannot be denied merely on account of the clerical reporting error or procedural discrepancy in the GSTR-3B returns.

Issues: (i) Whether invalidity of the show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order, founded on incorrect facts and grounds outside the notice, warrants their annulment; (ii) Whether, on return of a principal's goods after job work, the value of the original goods forms part of the consignment value for an e-way bill and supports penalty under Section 129.

Issue (i): Whether invalidity of the show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order, founded on incorrect facts and grounds outside the notice, warrants their annulment.

Analysis: The departmental interception records showed that the consignment was accompanied by a job-work invoice, the principal's delivery challan and an e-way bill. The allegations in the show-cause notice that these documents were absent were therefore contradicted by the department's own records. The detention order substituted the allegation of absence of an e-way bill with its alleged invalidity without notice or reasons, while the appellate order relied on an unrelated alleged absence of an e-way bill for an earlier movement. Such new and irrelevant grounds lay outside the show-cause notice and deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to meet the case.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order were unsustainable because they rested on incorrect facts, extraneous grounds and violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether, on return of a principal's goods after job work, the value of the original goods forms part of the consignment value for an e-way bill and supports penalty under Section 129.

Analysis: Read with the transaction-value provision, the consignment-value explanation confines the relevant value to the taxable supply covered by the invoice. Upon return of processed goods by a job worker, the taxable supply is the job-work service; the principal's original goods do not constitute the job worker's taxable supply. The invoice value comprising job-work charges and applicable tax was below the prescribed e-way-bill threshold. The absence of any allegation that the parties were related or that the invoice price was not the sole consideration supported acceptance of that invoice value.

Conclusion: The value of the original goods returned after job work is not includable in the consignment value for the e-way bill; no e-way bill was mandatorily required on these facts, and no penalty under Section 129 was leviable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned enforcement action lacked a factual and legal foundation, and the return of job-worked goods was required to be valued by reference to the job-work service alone.

Ratio Decidendi: For return of goods by a job worker to the principal, e-way-bill consignment value is the transaction value of the taxable job-work service and excludes the value of the principal's goods.

Issues: (i) Whether removal and replacement of creditors' hypothecated machinery with substantially lower-value equipment constituted fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, justifying contribution to the corporate debtor's assets; (ii) Whether the contribution amount required reduction for depreciation of the financed machinery and the realisable value of the machinery found at the premises.

Issue (i): Whether removal and replacement of creditors' hypothecated machinery with substantially lower-value equipment constituted fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, justifying contribution to the corporate debtor's assets.

Analysis: Section 66 permits contribution where the corporate debtor's business is carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for a fraudulent purpose. The financed machinery, its invoices, and hypothecation were supported by contemporaneous documents. No contemporaneous evidence established creditor consent to substitute the secured machinery or accounted for acquisition of the alleged replacement machinery. Independent valuation reports identified the machinery at site as lower-value rotogravure machinery; physical indications showed that machinery had earlier been removed; and missing or mismatched identification details prevented verification against the financed assets. The delayed handing over of possession, absence of supporting purchase records, and lack of approval for substitution cumulatively supported an inference of fraudulent purpose on a preponderance of probabilities. Earlier possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act did not create estoppel, and the dispute over precise technical identity did not oust jurisdiction under Section 66. Fraudulent trading need not be established by a series of transactions or direct proof of intent where compelling documentary and circumstantial evidence establishes removal of valuable secured assets from creditors' reach.

Conclusion: The removal and replacement of the hypothecated machinery constituted fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and contribution to the corporate debtor's assets was justified against the Appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the contribution amount required reduction for depreciation of the financed machinery and the realisable value of the machinery found at the premises.

Analysis: The contribution remedy under Section 66 is directed at restoring the corporate debtor's depleted asset position. No material established that the quantified value of the removed financed machinery was arbitrary or unsupported. The assertions concerning depreciation and the value of the substituted machinery did not displace the finding that the financed and hypothecated machinery had been removed to the detriment of the corporate debtor and its creditors.

Conclusion: The contribution amount of Rs. 17,23,05,603.50 did not warrant reduction and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The contribution remedy remains enforceable to restore the corporate debtor's depleted asset base, and the liquidation process may continue for preservation and realisation of its assets.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 may be established through cumulative documentary and circumstantial evidence showing removal of secured high-value assets and their unexplained replacement with substantially lower-value assets, without direct proof of fraudulent intent or a series of transactions.

Issues: (i) Whether brokerage and commission, membership fees, detention charges, and insurance services qualified as input services for CENVAT credit; (ii) Whether canteen and bus-facility staff-welfare services qualified as input services; and (iii) Whether the penalty for irregular CENVAT credit was correctly limited to 10% and had to be confined to the disallowed credits.

Issue (i): Whether brokerage and commission, membership fees, detention charges, and insurance services qualified as input services for CENVAT credit.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 contains a main limb covering services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture and an inclusive limb covering, among other things, advertisement and sales promotion, subject to specified exclusions. Brokerage and commission and association or federation membership fees were used for sales-promotion activities. The explanation inserted by Notification No. 02/2016-C.E. (N.T.) dated 03.02.2016 specifically includes commission-based sale of dutiable goods within sales promotion. Detention charges arose from storage and clearance of imported raw materials used in manufacture and formed part of their cost. Insurance premiums related to factory plant and machinery, stocks and goods in transit, rather than employee benefits, and therefore did not attract the employee-related exclusion.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: brokerage and commission, membership fees, detention charges, and insurance services qualified as input services eligible for CENVAT credit.

Issue (ii): Whether canteen and bus-facility staff-welfare services qualified as input services.

Analysis: The statutory obligation to provide employee welfare facilities under the Factories Act, 1948 did not make canteen and worker transportation services eligible input services. The settled legal position treated the CENVAT credit availed on these staff-welfare services as inconsistent with Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: CENVAT credit on canteen and bus-facility staff-welfare services was inadmissible and was recoverable with interest.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty for irregular CENVAT credit was correctly limited to 10% and had to be confined to the disallowed credits.

Analysis: Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits penalty to 10% where wrongful credit is not attended by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or similar ingredients. As credit was irregular only in respect of rent-a-cab and staff-welfare services, the penalty base could extend only to the credit availed on those services.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: penalty was restricted to 10% of the irregular CENVAT credit attributable only to rent-a-cab and staff-welfare services.

Final Conclusion: CENVAT credit is available for the services having a sales-promotion or manufacturing nexus, while credit on staff-welfare services remains inadmissible and the penalty exposure is correspondingly confined.

Issues: (i) Deductibility of expenditure incurred under the Employee Stock Option Scheme; (ii) Validity of an addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the share valuation report for Assessment Year 2018-19 was furnished by a Chartered Accountant rather than a Merchant Banker.

Issue (i): Deductibility of expenditure incurred under the Employee Stock Option Scheme.

Analysis: The issue stood governed by the binding position that the cost of an Employee Stock Option Scheme may be debited to the profit and loss account as revenue expenditure. That position was undisputed.

Conclusion: The Employee Stock Option Scheme expenditure is allowable as a deduction, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Validity of an addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the share valuation report for Assessment Year 2018-19 was furnished by a Chartered Accountant rather than a Merchant Banker.

Analysis: The restriction under Notification No. 23/2018 dated 24.05.2018, dispensing with certification by a Chartered Accountant in favour of valuation by a Merchant Banker, applied from the subsequent financial year. Since the relevant year was Financial Year 2017-18, the valuation report furnished by a Chartered Accountant could not be discarded on that basis.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's deduction for Employee Stock Option Scheme expenditure and its Chartered Accountant-based valuation for the relevant assessment year remain accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequently introduced requirement that share valuation be certified by a Merchant Banker cannot invalidate a Chartered Accountant's valuation for a prior financial year to which that requirement did not apply.

Issues: Whether the corporate debtor's forfeited right to file a reply in the insolvency application should be restored.

Analysis: A party should ordinarily receive an opportunity to contest proceedings on merits unless doing so causes grave prejudice to the opposite party. The lapse was confined to not filing the reply along with the response to the interim-moratorium application. A time-bound opportunity to file the reply, coupled with advance service, a corresponding opportunity for rejoinder, and costs, adequately preserved procedural fairness without impeding expeditious disposal of the insolvency application.

Conclusion: The corporate debtor was entitled to a final opportunity to file its reply in the insolvency application, subject to costs.

Issues: (i) Whether service of the demand notice by private courier at the corporate debtor's registered office satisfied Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016; (ii) Whether the operational debt met the Rs. 1 crore threshold and the damages correspondence disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute; and (iii) Whether the Section 9 application was maintainable notwithstanding the corporate debtor's claimed solvency.

Issue (i): Whether service of the demand notice by private courier at the corporate debtor's registered office satisfied Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The notice was dispatched to the registered office and the record established delivery through tracking details. The purpose of Section 8 and Rule 5 is to give the corporate debtor notice of the claim and an opportunity to pay or raise a genuine dispute. Actual delivery and knowledge constituted substantial compliance; procedural law, being the handmaid of justice, could not permit a technical objection to the courier mode to defeat the proceeding.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant: the demand notice was duly served and the objection to its mode of service was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the operational debt met the Rs. 1 crore threshold and the damages correspondence disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute.

Analysis: For foreign currency conversion, the exchange rate prevailing on the date of the demand notice was relevant in the circumstances. On that basis, the admitted unpaid advances exceeded Rs. 1 crore even after excluding the USD 16,766 damages component. The corporate debtor had acknowledged receipt of the advances, undertaken to repay them, neither supplied the goods nor returned the money. Correspondence concerning damages to a separate consignment did not create a genuine pre-existing dispute over the admitted advances and amounted to a moonshine dispute.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant: the statutory threshold was met and no genuine pre-existing dispute existed regarding the admitted advance amounts.

Issue (iii): Whether the Section 9 application was maintainable notwithstanding the corporate debtor's claimed solvency.

Analysis: Although insolvency proceedings cannot be used for recovery of genuinely disputed claims, the material established an operational debt, default, compliance with the demand-notice requirement, and absence of a genuine dispute. The corporate debtor's claimed solvency did not displace the statutory requirements for initiation of proceedings under Section 9.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant: the Section 9 application was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The statutory prerequisites for commencing the corporate insolvency resolution process were established, with payment of the entire admitted liability before the admission order remaining capable of preventing commencement of the process.

Ratio Decidendi: A Section 9 application is maintainable where effective service of the demand notice, an operational debt above the statutory threshold, and absence of a genuine pre-existing dispute concerning admitted unpaid advances are established.

Issues: (i) Whether the resolution applicant's non-disclosure of pending proceedings and attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act rendered it ineligible or vitiated the resolution plan under Section 29A and Regulation 39(1)(c); (ii) Whether interference with the Committee of Creditors' approval of the resolution plan was warranted on alleged deficiencies in feasibility, valuation, source of funds, and treatment of the appellant's claimed secured-creditor status.

Issue (i): Whether the resolution applicant's non-disclosure of pending proceedings and attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act rendered it ineligible or vitiated the resolution plan under Section 29A and Regulation 39(1)(c).

Analysis: Section 29A(d) prescribes ineligibility on the basis of the specified conviction, not merely the pendency of an inquiry, investigation, criminal proceeding, or attachment action. Although attachment of proceeds of crime is civil in form, it is connected with alleged criminal activity; nevertheless, attachment or pending proceedings alone do not establish the statutory disqualification. Regulation 39(1)(c) must be harmoniously read with Section 29A. The Committee of Creditors was apprised of the proceedings, deferred voting, obtained an independent eligibility assessment, deliberated on the disclosures and feasibility of the plan, and approved it after being fully informed. Any omission consequently did not establish a material irregularity affecting the integrity of the resolution process.

Conclusion: The pending proceedings and alleged non-disclosure did not render the resolution applicant ineligible or invalidate the resolution plan. The issue is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether interference with the Committee of Creditors' approval of the resolution plan was warranted on alleged deficiencies in feasibility, valuation, source of funds, and treatment of the appellant's claimed secured-creditor status.

Analysis: Judicial review of a plan approved by the requisite majority is confined to statutory non-compliance under Section 30(2) and the limited appellate grounds under Section 61(3); it does not permit substitution of the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom on feasibility, viability, valuation, or funding arrangements. The plan disclosed its funding sources and payment structure. Appointment of a third valuer is discretionary under Regulation 35(1)(b), and a plan need not match liquidation value. The appellant's secured-creditor status remained sub judice, while the plan provided for automatic modification of distribution among secured financial creditors if that status is ultimately recognised, adequately safeguarding the claimed entitlement.

Conclusion: No reviewable statutory non-compliance or material irregularity justified interference with the Committee of Creditors' approval of the plan. The issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan remains operative, and any eventual recognition of the appellant as a secured financial creditor is to be accommodated through the plan's stipulated distribution-adjustment mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending criminal proceedings or attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act do not, absent a statutory conviction-based disqualification or a material irregularity affecting the integrity of the insolvency process, invalidate a resolution plan approved by an informed Committee of Creditors; feasibility and viability remain within its commercial wisdom subject to the limited statutory review.