Issues: (i) Whether the Trial Court could modify its earlier direction under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and decline production of the Satisfaction Note, authorisation warrant and panchnama connected with the income-tax search; (ii) Whether recall of PW-15 for further cross-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was essential to the just decision of the criminal case.

Issue (i): Whether the Trial Court could modify its earlier direction under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and decline production of the Satisfaction Note, authorisation warrant and panchnama connected with the income-tax search.

Analysis: Section 91 requires the document sought to be necessary or desirable at the relevant stage of the proceeding; its existence alone does not warrant compulsory production. The earlier direction was procedural and interlocutory, and did not finally determine substantive rights, admissibility, recovery, or any defence. A prior Division Bench ruling had specifically scrutinised the validity of the warrant and search on the underlying confidential material and addressed the procedural objections concerning the search. Consequently, the continued necessity of calling for the same foundational record could validly be reassessed. The statutory restriction on disclosure of reasons to believe did not preclude limited judicial scrutiny where validity of an authorisation was directly challenged, but did not create a general entitlement to disclosure or require repeated production after the prior scrutiny.

Conclusion: The refusal to compel further production of the documents was valid; the issue is decided against the Petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether recall of PW-15 for further cross-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was essential to the just decision of the criminal case.

Analysis: Recall under Section 311 is not automatic and depends upon whether the proposed evidence is essential to a just decision. The stated object of recall was to confront PW-15 with the Satisfaction Note, but that document was not on record and its production had been declined. PW-15 had already been substantially cross-examined on the preliminary inquiry, authorisation, search of the premises, recovery, and allegation of planting. No independent purpose showing that further examination was essential survived beyond the unavailable proposed confrontation.

Conclusion: Recall of PW-15 was not essential to the just decision of the case; the issue is decided against the Petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenged procedural orders remain undisturbed, without any expression on the merits of the criminal charges, which remain for determination in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Production under Section 91 and recall under Section 311 require a continuing showing of necessity or essentiality; neither power is attracted where the intended evidentiary purpose no longer survives and the relevant matters have already been adequately addressed.

Issues: Whether a voluntary deposit made during investigation could be appropriated towards differential customs duty relating to imports beyond the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, in settlement proceedings.

Analysis: The amount had been voluntarily deposited during investigation, and the proprietor had admitted the total differential duty liability and requested adjustment of that deposit towards the relevant import period. The statements and the purpose of the deposit were neither retracted nor controverted by material placed before the Court. The appropriation was not a fresh statutory demand or recovery under Section 28, but concerned adjustment of an amount already voluntarily paid. In judicial review, the factual findings of the Settlement Commission could not be re-appreciated absent jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, manifest legal error, or lack of evidentiary support.

Conclusion: Appropriation of the voluntary deposit towards the differential duty relating to imports beyond the limitation period was valid and did not amount to enforcement of a time-barred demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the customs adjudication and the rejection of the statutory appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit should be entertained despite an efficacious appellate remedy.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where the statute provides an efficacious redressal mechanism, particularly where the challenge requires examination of disputed facts and merits. The Customs Act, 1962 provides appellate remedies, and the prescribed pre-deposit under Section 129E is a mandatory condition for entertaining an appeal. Financial hardship did not justify bypassing that statutory condition. The objections concerning cross-examination, evidentiary value and retraction of statements, confiscation, and penalty were merits issues for the competent statutory forum.

Conclusion: Exercise of writ jurisdiction was not warranted; the petitioner must pursue the available statutory appellate remedy. All merits issues were left open for independent determination by the appellate forum.

Issues: Whether the demand under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in relation to electricity generated using bagasse and the related demand concerning press-mud, was sustainable.

Analysis: Bagasse is agricultural waste or residue and does not result from a process of manufacture within Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The deeming provision concerning marketability under Section 2(d) cannot apply where no process amounting to manufacture is established. Consequently, Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is inapplicable to bagasse. The demand in relation to electricity was founded on the contrary premise. The Revenue also could not compel adoption of the payment option under Rule 6(3), and reversal of proportionate Cenvat credit was equivalent to non-availment of such credit.

Conclusion: The Rule 6(3) demand, with consequential interest and penalty, was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether Article 11 of the loan agreement, authorising repossession and sale of the hypothecated vehicle, conformed to RBI recovery safeguards and the Indian Contract Act, 1872; (ii) Whether the Company's repossession and sale of the vehicle were unlawful and warranted compensation; and (iii) Whether the writ petition could be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Issue (i): Whether Article 11 of the loan agreement, authorising repossession and sale of the hypothecated vehicle, conformed to RBI recovery safeguards and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 gives statutory force to RBI directions. The applicable fair-practice framework prohibits harassment and use of force in recovery, requires lawful seizure, and requires a repossession clause to provide adequate notice, a fair procedure for possession, an opportunity to cure default, and a transparent sale process. Article 11 purported to terminate the borrower's rights without notice, authorised entry wherever the vehicle might be located, did not prescribe a possession or sale procedure, and allowed the Company unilaterally to waive notice.

Conclusion: Article 11 does not conform to the RBI safeguards or the requirement of contractual fairness under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and does not meet the legal standard of a valid repossession clause to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Company's repossession and sale of the vehicle were unlawful and warranted compensation.

Analysis: No seven-day pre-repossession notice was issued, despite such notice being a contractual precondition to repossession. Possession was taken at night by breaking the steering lock and without a memorandum signed by the borrower, contrary to the requirement of peaceful and lawful recovery. The conduct breached the RBI fair-recovery safeguards and arbitrarily deprived the borrower of the vehicle used for livelihood, attracting Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The repossession and consequent sale were unauthorised and arbitrary; the borrower is entitled to restitution and compensation, although the completed sale is not set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition could be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Analysis: The borrower promptly reported the incident as theft and pursued remedial proceedings in that bona fide belief. Continuing traffic challans relating to the vehicle after its alleged sale also required explanation. No prejudice from the alleged delay was established.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Final Conclusion: The loan accounts are to be closed, the sale proceeds refunded with interest, and compensation and costs paid to the borrower, while the sale of the vehicle remains undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A financier's contractual right of self-help repossession is enforceable only through a fair and lawful process complying with binding RBI recovery safeguards, including prior notice, an opportunity to cure, peaceful possession, and a transparent sale procedure.

Issues: (i) Whether alleged non-consideration of the reply and supporting documents justified writ interference despite the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether DGGI and the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, had jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate the common notice; (iii) Whether reliance on Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST rendered the demand under Section 74 amenable to writ interference.

Issue (i): Whether alleged non-consideration of the reply and supporting documents justified writ interference despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction need not be exercised where Section 107 provides an effective appellate remedy capable of undertaking factual scrutiny. The impugned order recorded the personal hearing and disclosed its reasons for rejecting input tax credit, notwithstanding an erroneous reference to the date of written submissions and the absence of separate discussion of every document. Verification of work orders, subcontracts, invoices, payments and evidence of execution requires factual appraisal available in appeal.

Conclusion: The alleged inadequacy in consideration of the reply and documents does not warrant writ intervention and is to be pursued in statutory appeal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether DGGI and the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, had jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate the common notice.

Analysis: Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax vested specified DGGI officers with the powers of Central tax officers throughout India. Administrative allocation to State tax authorities does not exclude intelligence-based enforcement by DGGI. The applicable adjudication allocation instruments designated Delhi North for the common notice because the noticee with the highest tax demand was located in Delhi, and the revised allocation likewise retained Delhi North as the designated authority.

Conclusion: DGGI and the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, had jurisdiction over the common notice and its adjudication. The jurisdictional objection fails, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reliance on Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST rendered the demand under Section 74 amenable to writ interference.

Analysis: The Circular differentiates between ineligible input tax credit used for genuine outward supplies and cases where both inward and outward invoices lack underlying supplies. Determination of the applicable situation, the validity of recovery under Section 74, and the resulting consequences for penalties depends upon characterization of the underlying transactions and examination of the evidentiary record. Section 107(11) enables the appellate authority to undertake that inquiry and confirm, modify or annul the adjudication.

Conclusion: Invocation of the Circular does not by itself justify writ interference. Its applicability and consequences remain open for appellate determination, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The enforcement and adjudicatory jurisdiction challenge stands conclusively rejected, while the factual and substantive challenges concerning input tax credit, demand, interest, penalties and applicability of the Circular remain for determination in the statutory appellate forum.

Issues: (i) Whether the Common Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate a composite show-cause notice and whether the impugned circulars validly selected that authority. (ii) Whether the highest-demand criterion for selection of the Common Adjudicating Authority is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked to challenge the merits of the adjudication despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the Common Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate a composite show-cause notice and whether the impugned circulars validly selected that authority.

Analysis: Sections 3, 5(3) and 167 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 require jurisdiction-conferring or function-transferring measures to be made through notification, whereas Section 168 permits administrative directions for uniform implementation of an existing jurisdiction. Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax, as amended by Notification No. 2/2022-Central Tax, vested specified Additional and Joint Commissioners with pan-India jurisdiction over notices issued by the investigative authority. The circulars did not enlarge that jurisdiction or appoint an officer outside the notified class; they provided an administrative method for choosing one among officers already competent to decide a composite notice. The absence of an express recital of approval did not invalidate the circulars without material showing absence of authority. The notified appellate hierarchy remained available in the Commissionerate where the Common Adjudicating Authority was posted.

Conclusion: The Common Adjudicating Authority was lawfully vested with jurisdiction, and the impugned circulars validly operated as an administrative allocation mechanism.

Issue (ii): Whether the highest-demand criterion for selection of the Common Adjudicating Authority is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The criterion is objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable. It bears a rational nexus to securing a single, consistent adjudication of a common investigation and avoiding conflicting factual findings. Its application involves no discretionary choice by the issuing officer and does not amount to impermissible sub-delegation of adjudicatory power.

Conclusion: The highest-demand criterion is constitutionally valid and does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (iii): Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked to challenge the merits of the adjudication despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The jurisdictional challenge was entertained as a recognised exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of an efficacious statutory remedy. Once the jurisdictional foundation of the order was sustained, the remaining challenges concerning the demand, evidence and natural justice fell within the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: Challenges on merits are to be pursued before the statutory Appellate Authority and are not amenable to determination in the writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The notified pan-India adjudication framework and the administrative mechanism for common adjudication are legally sustained, while all unresolved challenges to the tax demand remain available before the statutory appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification has already vested a defined class of officers with jurisdiction, an administrative circular may validly select one competent officer for common adjudication of a composite notice without independently conferring or transferring jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether processed milk, captively consumed or sent to job workers in the continuous manufacture of sugar-boiled confectionery, constitutes an exempted final product for the purposes of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Rules 3 and 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 operate in relation to inputs or input services used for manufacture of final products. An intermediate product arising as an integral part of an integrated manufacturing process, and used captively or through job workers for manufacture of the dutiable ultimate product, cannot be separately equated with an exempted final product merely because it is not independently cleared. The nature of the manufacturing operation must be assessed as a whole; technological or unavoidable intermediate products do not attract the Rule 6 obligation on the premise that they are exempted goods.

Conclusion: Processed milk is an intermediate product and not an exempted final product for Rule 6 purposes; the demand founded on the contrary premise is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment order confirming tax and interest liabilities required fresh consideration in view of the asserted inadequate response regarding reverse-charge liability and the disputed input tax credit.

Analysis: The order noted that the liabilities concerning blocked credit and reverse-charge tax had been paid, while interest remained payable, and that the turnover-difference demand had been dropped. A further opportunity for adjudication was considered appropriate. No final determination was made on the tax, interest, or input tax credit liabilities.

Outcome: The impugned assessment order was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh order on merits, conditional upon payment of the admitted interest liability and verification of the stipulated pre-deposit.

Issues: Whether rejection of an application seeking waiver under Section 128A solely for non-filing of Form GST DRC-03A, despite prior payment through Form GST DRC-03, was sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 164(2) requires payment of the tax demanded to be credited against the debit entry created by the order, and its second proviso requires Form GST DRC-03A where payment was made through Form GST DRC-03. Non-filing of Form GST DRC-03A was procedural where the amount already debited had not been utilised towards any other tax liability. Verification was required as to whether the equivalent amount remained available in the electronic credit ledger until the impugned order; upon such verification, post facto filing of Form GST DRC-03A could be permitted.

Conclusion: The rejection was set aside for fresh determination after verification of the availability of the tax amount and after permitting the petitioner to respond to the notice in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the maximum penalty for delayed filing of quarterly TDS statements was justified despite deposit of the deducted tax and absence of revenue loss.

Analysis: Delayed filing of the quarterly TDS statements attracted Section 271H(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, Section 271H(2) provides a discretionary range between the statutory minimum and maximum penalty; the maximum cannot be imposed mechanically. The deducted tax had been deposited in the Government treasury, the deductees' credits were regularised upon filing of the statements, and the delay arose in the circumstances of a Government educational institution without causing loss to the revenue. These circumstances rendered the maximum penalty disproportionate.

Conclusion: The maximum penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 for each quarter was unsustainable and was reduced to the statutory minimum of Rs. 10,000 for each quarter, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for misdeclaration and offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 warranted interference in criminal revision; (ii) Whether the sentence required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for misdeclaration and offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 warranted interference in criminal revision.

Analysis: Although the container was certified at the factory as containing granite cobble stones, Customs interception disclosed red sander logs. The untraceable transport vehicle, fictitious intermediaries identified for the export transaction, and absence of a complaint regarding the alleged theft of the declared goods supported the concurrent factual findings. Those findings were not perverse and therefore did not warrant revisional interference.

Conclusion: The convictions for the offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 are affirmed; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence required modification.

Analysis: Section 132 permits imprisonment, fine, or both. As the prohibited goods were not shown to be goods covered by Section 123, the applicable punishment for the Section 135 offences was under Section 135(1)(ii), carrying a maximum imprisonment of three years. The period already spent in custody and the substantial lapse of time since the occurrence justified modification of the custodial sentence.

Conclusion: Imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone, while fines totalling Rs. 3,50,000 are imposed with the stipulated default imprisonment; the issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The conviction remains operative, with the custodial punishment substituted by the period already undergone and the monetary sanction recalibrated.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings in criminal revision are not disturbed unless shown to be perverse.

Issues: (i) Whether rehabilitation-policy and agreement-based benefits could be enforced against the corporate debtor or its successor after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the rejection of rehabilitation benefits on the ground that the petitioner was not a displaced person under the Madhya Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether rehabilitation-policy and agreement-based benefits could be enforced against the corporate debtor or its successor after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 binds all stakeholders, including government authorities, to an approved resolution plan. Claims not forming part of that plan stand extinguished upon its approval. Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent policies, agreements and prior arrangements. The claimed rehabilitation liability was not included in the approved resolution plan.

Conclusion: The rehabilitation-policy and agreement-based claim is not enforceable against the corporate debtor or its successor.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of rehabilitation benefits on the ground that the petitioner was not a displaced person under the Madhya Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Under Clause 2.1(a) of Madhya Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002, eligibility depended on the claimant qualifying as a displaced person. The administrative finding, reached after inquiry, inspection, consideration of witness material and a hearing, was that the petitioner had not resided in the acquired area for the required period and was residing with his family elsewhere. Article 226 review does not permit appellate reappreciation of such material absent an apparent or jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: The rejection of rehabilitation benefits disclosed no apparent or jurisdictional error warranting writ interference.

Final Conclusion: The approved insolvency resolution plan extinguished the unprovided corporate liability, and the administrative determination of ineligibility under the rehabilitation policy remains legally undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim not incorporated in an approved resolution plan is extinguished under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a fact-based administrative determination is not open to reappreciation in writ jurisdiction absent jurisdictional or apparent error.

Issues: Whether the impugned service-tax demand required fresh adjudication because another order appeared to confirm an identical demand for the same period.

Analysis: Two show-cause notices issued on the same date resulted in separate demand orders for the same tax period. The related order was already under statutory appeal, requiring verification of whether both demands concerned the same liability.

Outcome: The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to file a reply and to be heard.

Issues: Whether a declarant who made payment under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme within time and sought withdrawal of the pending appeal during the Scheme's currency could be denied a discharge certificate because proof of withdrawal was furnished after closure of the Scheme.

Analysis: Section 127(7) and Section 127(8), read with Rule 9, require payment of the determined amount and withdrawal of the pending appeal, with production of proof of withdrawal for issuance of Form SVLDRS-4. Payment and withdrawal are substantive conditions, whereas intimation or production of proof to the designated committee is procedural. The Scheme prescribed a timeline for payment but none for withdrawal. The payment was timely made and the withdrawal request was filed while the Scheme remained operative; delayed listing and withdrawal resulted from the COVID-19 disruption and lay within the Court's domain. The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit prevents prejudice from an act or delay of the Court. Satisfaction of essential conditions cannot be defeated by procedural or electronic-processing formalities.

Conclusion: Denial of Form SVLDRS-4 was invalid. The designated committee must manually process the request and issue the discharge certificate; the subsequent adjudication reviving the settled demand was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a District Magistrate may require a secured creditor to deposit or bear police-assistance expenses for taking possession of a secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Analysis: Section 14 requires the Magistrate to assist a secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets and permits such steps and force as may be necessary to secure compliance. Police assistance, where necessary, forms part of that statutory mechanism. The provision contains no express authority permitting recovery of police-assistance expenses from the secured creditor or imposing such payment as a condition for implementation.

Conclusion: A condition requiring the secured creditor to deposit police-assistance charges under Section 14 is unauthorised and invalid; the condition was set aside and necessary police assistance was directed.

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment disclosed a procedural irregularity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The impugned assessment was found free from procedural irregularity. Although the period for statutory appeal had expired, liberty to invoke the appellate remedy was granted upon verification of the stated recovery of the requisite disputed tax amount, with a direction for disposal on merits without reference to limitation.

Conclusion: No procedural irregularity in the assessment was established, and writ interference was declined.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the order confirming the GST demand where liability for blocked input tax credit and reverse-charge tax had been admitted, and where alleged unreported turnover was identified through comparison with Form 26AS.

Analysis: Tax liability on the first two discrepancies had been admitted and paid, leaving interest and penalty payable. The remaining discrepancy concerned turnover allegedly omitted from GST returns despite its reflection in Form 26AS. No detailed merits adjudication of that discrepancy was undertaken in the writ proceedings, for which the statutory appellate remedy remained available.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy for the turnover discrepancy.

Issues: (i) Whether an oral agreement between companies is legally barred under the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the pleaded authority of a company representative can be rejected for want of an authority letter at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

Issue (i): Whether an oral agreement between companies is legally barred under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: Section 46 of the Companies Act, 1956, which had been relied upon to require written execution, stood repealed and was not preserved by the savings provision. The Companies Act, 2013 contains no corresponding prohibition. Section 21 regulates authorization for signing written documents and does not impose a mandatory writing requirement for every corporate agreement. General contract law recognizes concluded reciprocal promises without requiring every agreement for sale to be written.

Conclusion: An oral agreement between companies is not barred by the Companies Act, 2013 and may be governed by general contract law.

Issue (ii): Whether the pleaded authority of a company representative can be rejected for want of an authority letter at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

Analysis: The plaint specifically pleaded that the representative had been authorized to execute the agreement for the company. The correctness and validity of that pleaded authority require evidentiary determination and cannot be decided at the plaint-rejection stage.

Conclusion: Absence of an authority letter cannot defeat a specific pleading of authorization under Order VII Rule 11; the issue must be determined on evidence.

Final Conclusion: The objections based on an alleged mandatory writing requirement and lack of documentary proof of authority did not warrant rejection of the plaint, with the authority question remaining for evidentiary adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory bar or mandatory writing requirement, repeal of an earlier corporate-execution provision leaves oral agreements between companies governed by general contract law.

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment required fresh adjudication in light of the asserted overlap with an earlier assessment concerning three demand heads.

Analysis: The petitioner had asserted that substantially identical demands relating to blocked input tax credit, commission income and reverse-charge freight had already been confirmed by the jurisdictional officer, and that the tax liability had been discharged. Fresh adjudication was directed after deposit of the interest and penalty imposed in the earlier assessment, with notice to the petitioner.

Outcome: The impugned assessment was quashed and remitted for fresh determination on merits upon compliance with the stipulated deposit.