Outcome: Applications for condonation of delay and the special leave petition were dismissed.

Issues: Whether the landowner's unilateral revocation of the joint development agreement and power of attorney warranted exclusion of the subject land from the corporate insolvency resolution process, and whether interim preservation of the land was warranted pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: The joint development agreement and power of attorney prima facie created irrevocable and non-determinable development rights in favour of the corporate debtor. The contractual period for construction was reckoned from the approvals and the subsequent agreement, and had not expired when termination was asserted. The purported termination was not accepted; the alleged no-objection communication was conditional upon repayment of the proportionate project loan and amounted to a counter-offer. Existing mortgage rights and possible third-party rights could not be conclusively ruled out at this stage.

Outcome: The landowner was permitted to intervene, exclusion of the subject land from the corporate insolvency resolution process was not granted at this stage, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo pending hearing of the appeals.

Outcome: The special leave petition was disposed of as premature, with liberty to seek adjournment before the Adjudicating Authority.

Outcome: Special Leave Petitions dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail pending trial for alleged fraudulent availment and utilisation of input tax credit.

Analysis: The charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 20.07.2026, and the sole criminal antecedent was from 2018. The alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were noted to be non-bailable but compoundable. No opinion on the merits of the prosecution case was expressed.

Outcome: Regular bail was granted on execution of the prescribed bond and compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether a shareholder and personal guarantor, who was not a party to the proceedings relating to implementation of the approved resolution plan, had standing to seek recall; and (ii) Whether excluding the delay in handing over possession from the implementation period and extending the time for balance payment constituted an impermissible modification of the approved resolution plan warranting recall.

Issue (i): Whether a shareholder and personal guarantor, who was not a party to the proceedings relating to implementation of the approved resolution plan, had standing to seek recall.

Analysis: Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 was invoked for recall. The applicant was neither a financial creditor nor an operational creditor, was not impleaded in the underlying implementation proceedings, and had not been permitted to intervene. The procedural rights of the suspended management remain subservient to the objectives of the insolvency process after the Committee of Creditors has exercised its commercial wisdom. No legal injury from the extension was established.

Conclusion: The applicant lacked standing to seek recall of the order concerning implementation of the resolution plan.

Issue (ii): Whether excluding the delay in handing over possession from the implementation period and extending the time for balance payment constituted an impermissible modification of the approved resolution plan warranting recall.

Analysis: The successful resolution applicant had made the entire upfront payment, but possession of the subject asset had not been handed over because of continued unauthorised occupation. Handing over possession upon receipt of the upfront amount was an obligation arising under the approved plan. An exclusion of time caused by failure to hand over possession was consistent with implementation of the plan. Extension or exclusion of time for performance of financial obligations in these circumstances does not alter the substantive terms of an approved resolution plan.

Conclusion: The exclusion of delay and consequential extension did not amount to modification of the approved resolution plan and did not warrant recall.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan remains enforceable with appropriate exclusion of time for delay in handing over possession not attributable to the successful resolution applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Extension or exclusion of time for performance under an approved resolution plan, where implementation is impeded by failure to hand over possession despite timely upfront payment by the successful resolution applicant, does not constitute modification of the plan.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was chargeable on the termination amount claimed upon premature cancellation of the lease; (ii) Whether service tax on lease rent for April 2013 to August 2014 was to exclude August 2014 and account for the small-service-provider exemption and tax already paid; (iii) Whether the service tax demand based on monthly rent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs received from the subsequent tenant was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was chargeable on the termination amount claimed upon premature cancellation of the lease.

Analysis: The termination claim was not received under the eventual compromise. The amount stipulated upon premature vacation was compensatory for reneging on the lease and could not retain the character of rent after the premises had been vacated.

Conclusion: The service tax demand on the termination claim was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax on lease rent for April 2013 to August 2014 was to exclude August 2014 and account for the small-service-provider exemption and tax already paid.

Analysis: There was no evidence of rent having been paid for August 2014 after vacation of the premises. The small-service-provider exemption, if available, could not be denied, and the tax liability required recomputation after giving credit for tax already deposited.

Conclusion: The demand was partly sustained only after excluding rent for August 2014, allowing the applicable exemption, and appropriating tax already paid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the service tax demand based on monthly rent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs received from the subsequent tenant was sustainable.

Analysis: The agreement recording monthly rent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs was corroborated by the tenant's confirmation and was found more credible than the later agreement recording substantially lower rent.

Conclusion: The service tax demand computed on monthly rent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Unreceived compensatory termination amounts were excluded from the taxable value, while the liability on actual lease rent was confined to a recomputed amount and the higher evidenced rent from the subsequent tenancy remained taxable.

Ratio Decidendi: A compensatory amount stipulated for breach of a lease, which is not received and is not rent for continued occupation, is not liable to service tax as consideration for renting.

Issues: (i) Whether taxability and classification are determined by the physical form of goods at the time of sale or by their later end product or end use; (ii) Whether GRD Powder and GRD Mix are classifiable as non-alcoholic drinks and beverages or under the residuary entry.

Issue (i): Whether taxability and classification are determined by the physical form of goods at the time of sale or by their later end product or end use.

Analysis: Taxing statutes require strict construction, and the taxable event is the sale or supply of goods in the form in which they are supplied. A consumer's subsequent choice to mix a powder with milk or water, or to use it in a solid preparation, does not alter the taxable identity of the goods. Common-parlance, functional-character, or basic-nature tests cannot be used to import an end-use criterion where the statutory entry classifies goods by their physical form.

Conclusion: Tax liability and classification are determined by the form in which the goods are sold, not by their possible later end use.

Issue (ii): Whether GRD Powder and GRD Mix are classifiable as non-alcoholic drinks and beverages or under the residuary entry.

Analysis: Entry 20(ii) associates beverages with syrups, cordials, distilled juices, ark and essences, which constitute a class of liquid goods. Applying ejusdem generis, the expression "beverages" takes its meaning from those associated liquid preparations. The expression "including" does not extend the entry to goods of a materially different physical form, and the entry contains no deeming inclusion of powders, concentrates or biscuits used to prepare drinks.

Conclusion: GRD Powder and GRD Mix, being sold as powder and biscuit, are not non-alcoholic drinks or beverages and fall under the residuary entry.

Final Conclusion: Products sold in powder or biscuit form remain subject to the residuary classification notwithstanding their possible subsequent preparation as drinks.

Ratio Decidendi: For fiscal classification, the taxable identity of goods is determined by their physical form at the time of sale, and a later consumer end use cannot convert a powder or solid product into a beverage where the specific entry contextually covers liquid goods.

Issues: (i) Whether acquittal in a separate prosecution for criminal breach of trust and cheating extinguishes the independently acknowledged legally enforceable debt supporting the cheque-dishonour prosecution; (ii) Whether the drawer rebutted the statutory presumptions by a probable defence based on an uncorroborated claim that the cheque leaf was snatched; (iii) Whether the statutory demand-notice requirements were met despite the drawer's plea of non-service; and (iv) Whether the concurrent findings warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether acquittal in a separate prosecution for criminal breach of trust and cheating extinguishes the independently acknowledged legally enforceable debt supporting the cheque-dishonour prosecution.

Analysis: A prosecution for cheque dishonour is founded upon the independently enforceable monetary liability underlying the cheque. The written declaration and notarized agreement acknowledging liability supplied an independent basis for the debt. An acquittal in the separate criminal prosecution because of deficiencies in proof of its distinct penal ingredients did not negate that written acknowledgment or the monetary liability.

Conclusion: The separate acquittal did not extinguish the legally enforceable debt underlying the cheque. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the drawer rebutted the statutory presumptions by a probable defence based on an uncorroborated claim that the cheque leaf was snatched.

Analysis: Upon proof of drawing, presentation and dishonour of the cheque, the statutory presumption of consideration and liability arose. Although the reverse onus could be discharged on a preponderance of probabilities, a bare statement under Section 313, unsupported by defence evidence, a contemporaneous police report or intimation to the bank, did not amount to a probable defence.

Conclusion: The statutory presumptions remained unrebutted, as the snatched-cheque defence was not probable. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the statutory demand-notice requirements were met despite the drawer's plea of non-service.

Analysis: Dispatch of the notice by registered post to the drawer's admitted correct address attracted the presumption of due service. No reliable material established incarceration at the relevant delivery time. Further, receipt of court summons with the complaint afforded an opportunity to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days; failure to do so precluded reliance on an alleged defect in notice service.

Conclusion: The statutory notice requirements were satisfied. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether the concurrent findings warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is not a second appellate review and is exercisable only where concurrent findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or affected by gross illegality or procedural miscarriage. The findings rested on the cheque, dishonour memo, notice materials, written acknowledgment and the unrebutted statutory presumptions, without any demonstrated patent perversity or legal infirmity.

Conclusion: No ground for revisional interference was established. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The independently acknowledged liability, unrebutted statutory presumptions and valid notice process sustain the conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque.

Issues: (i) Whether dates appearing in Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 govern limitation for issuance of show cause notices and adjudication orders under Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether challenges to the invocation of Section 74 and the evidentiary basis of the demand should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal.

Issue (i): Whether dates appearing in Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 govern limitation for issuance of show cause notices and adjudication orders under Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 74(2) requires issuance of the substantive notice under Section 74(1), while Section 74(10) requires issuance of the substantive order under Section 74(9) within the stipulated periods. Rule 142(1)(a) treats Form GST DRC-01 as an electronic summary accompanying the notice, and Rule 142(5) treats Form GST DRC-07 as an electronic summary of the order. The substantive notices and orders bore dates preceding the asserted limitation cut-off dates; the later dates on the electronic summaries could not replace or alter the dates of the substantive instruments.

Conclusion: Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 do not determine limitation under Sections 74(2) and 74(10), and their later dates do not render the substantive notices or orders time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether challenges to the invocation of Section 74 and the evidentiary basis of the demand should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The objections concerning fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, knowledge or collusion, admissibility of input tax credit, computation, penalty, and sufficiency of departmental material require factual examination and appreciation of evidence. Section 107 provides an efficacious appellate remedy competent to address those questions of law and fact. No denial of hearing or patent jurisdictional defect was established, and the limitation objection did not justify bypassing that remedy.

Conclusion: The merits challenges are not to be entertained in writ jurisdiction and may be urged before the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 107.

Final Conclusion: Timely substantive notices and adjudication orders are not invalidated by subsequent electronic summaries, and factual challenges to the demand must be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the relevant dates are those of the substantive show cause notice and adjudication order; Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 are consequential electronic summaries and do not substitute those instruments.

Issues: (i) Whether the computer printouts and private or third-party records were admissible and sufficiently linked to the assessee to establish clandestine manufacture and under-invoicing; (ii) Whether abnormal electricity consumption and alleged theft of electricity established unaccounted manufacture and clearance; (iii) Whether the alleged clandestine production was sustainable in view of the installed furnace capacity; (iv) Whether statements relied upon for the demand could be admitted without compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the computer printouts and private or third-party records were admissible and sufficiently linked to the assessee to establish clandestine manufacture and under-invoicing.

Analysis: Electronic records require compliance with the safeguards under Section 36B, including the prescribed certification concerning their production and device. The separately captioned computer folder, records not bearing the assessee's name, and documents recovered from dealer premises lacked independent verification linking the transactions to the assessee. There was also no tangible corroboration through raw-material consumption, transport, buyers, financial flow-back, or actual excess production.

Conclusion: The computer printouts and private or third-party records were inadmissible or insufficient to establish clandestine manufacture or under-invoicing, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether abnormal electricity consumption and alleged theft of electricity established unaccounted manufacture and clearance.

Analysis: Electricity consumption may vary because of operational and technical factors. Without a scientifically established plant-specific consumption norm and independent evidence linking consumption to quantified unaccounted production and clearance, electricity data and an allegation of electricity theft could not substantiate excise evasion.

Conclusion: Abnormal electricity consumption and alleged theft of electricity did not establish unaccounted manufacture or clearance, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged clandestine production was sustainable in view of the installed furnace capacity.

Analysis: A charge of clandestine manufacture must be tested against the physical capacity of the plant. The alleged production was not shown to be achievable even with both operational furnaces, and no undisclosed manufacturing facility was established.

Conclusion: The alleged clandestine production was not sustainable in view of the unaddressed capacity constraint, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether statements relied upon for the demand could be admitted without compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: Statements recorded during investigation cannot prove the truth of their contents unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D is followed. The required statutory exercise was not undertaken, and the statements had not been tested in the prescribed manner.

Conclusion: The untested statements could not be read in evidence against the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The cumulative absence of admissible electronic evidence, independently corroborated material, capacity-based proof, and legally usable statements left no sustainable evidentiary basis for excise liability, interest, or penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine manufacture, clearance, or under-invoicing cannot rest on uncertified electronic records, unverified private or third-party documents, untested statements, or electricity consumption alone; it requires legally admissible and independently corroborated evidence.

Issues: Whether the demand notice dated 15.07.1997 for sales tax assessment year 1991-92 was barred by the five-year limitation prescribed under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The earlier demand notice dated 06.03.1997 concerning the same assessment year had been issued within the prescribed five-year period. The subsequent notice dated 15.07.1997 was in continuity of that earlier notice and related to the same sales-tax demand.

Conclusion: The demand notice dated 15.07.1997 was not barred by limitation and was valid. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the defendant directly engaged the plaintiff to pursue the GST refund claim and agreed to pay professional fees of Rs. 5,25,000; (ii) Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party; and (iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery, interest and litigation costs.

Issue (i): Whether the defendant directly engaged the plaintiff to pursue the GST refund claim and agreed to pay professional fees of Rs. 5,25,000.

Analysis: The power of attorney expressly authorised the plaintiff to represent the company in the GST refund matter, and its execution was admitted. The plaintiff's appearances before the GST authority were also recorded. The correspondence acknowledged the fee amount of Rs. 5,25,000. The applicable framework required proof of direct engagement and agreed consideration; an unagreed condition making payment dependent upon success of the refund claim could not qualify that obligation. The alleged contingency was unsupported by any agreement and was introduced subsequently.

Conclusion: The defendant had directly engaged the plaintiff and agreed to pay professional fees of Rs. 5,25,000. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party.

Analysis: The direct authority granted to the plaintiff and the established professional engagement with the defendant made the alleged intermediary's presence unnecessary for adjudicating the fee claim.

Conclusion: The suit was not bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery, interest and litigation costs.

Analysis: The agreed fee and services rendered were established by the authority document, official record of representation, demand communications and the defendant's acknowledgement of the fee. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governed the discretionary grant of pendente lite and future interest.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 5,25,000 with interest at 6% per annum from institution until realisation; litigation costs were not awarded. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The direct professional mandate and the agreed fee were enforceable, and the fee could not be made contingent on the outcome of the underlying GST refund proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A client who directly authorises and accepts an advocate's professional services cannot avoid an agreed fee by subsequently imposing an unagreed condition that payment depends on success in the underlying matter.

Issues: (i) Whether the arm's length price of intra-group support services could be determined at nil and the corresponding expenditure alternatively disallowed as not incurred wholly and exclusively for business; (ii) Whether interest under Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was required to be computed with reference to tax due on returned income.

Issue (i): Whether the arm's length price of intra-group support services could be determined at nil and the corresponding expenditure alternatively disallowed as not incurred wholly and exclusively for business.

Analysis: Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires determination of arm's length price through a recognised method. Rejection of the assessee's benchmarking or dissatisfaction with the benefit test cannot, without an objective comparable analysis or other prescribed-method exercise, justify a nil arm's length price. The contemporaneous communications, agreements, cost-allocation workings and personnel details cumulatively established actual business support and business nexus. Broad functional overlap between global-level and regional-level services did not establish duplication without an item-wise examination. Where closely linked transactions were benchmarked under TNMM, a component could not be separately assigned a nil value without a proper basis. The expenditure was neither shown to be capital, personal, nor prohibited by law; consequently, commercial expediency and business nexus were established for Section 37(1) purposes. Consistent acceptance of comparable services in earlier years, absent any material factual or legal change, also supported the conclusion.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the nil arm's length price determination, the transfer-pricing adjustment and the alternate disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was required to be computed with reference to tax due on returned income.

Analysis: Interest under Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is to be computed with reference to the tax due on returned income. Verification and recomputation were required in accordance with that statutory basis.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the interest under Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was directed to be verified and recomputed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing addition for intra-group services and the corresponding alternate business-expenditure disallowance were unsustainable, and the interest computation required statutory recomputation.

Ratio Decidendi: An arm's length price cannot be determined at nil merely on an asserted failure to prove benefit from intra-group services; the statutory transfer-pricing methodology and an objective benchmarking exercise must be applied.

Issues: Whether denial of composition-levy treatment for non-filing of Form GST ITC-03 could be sustained after belated filing of the form.

Analysis: Section 10 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governs the composition levy. Rule 3(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires a registered person opting for the scheme to furnish Form GST ITC-03 containing stock details and reversal of input tax credit. The denial order was made without a reply, whereas Form GST ITC-03 was subsequently furnished. The belated compliance and a proper reply required consideration before determining eligibility under the composition scheme.

Conclusion: The refusal of composition treatment without accounting for the belated Form GST ITC-03 compliance could not stand; eligibility for the composition levy must be freshly determined after considering the reply.

Issues: Whether electrical installations functionally integral to plant and machinery qualify for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The electrical installations comprised transformers, transformer-connectivity panel boards, metal and spark detectors, and yarn-conditioning machinery. These installations were indispensable to the manufacturing process and functionally inseparable from the plant and machinery. Regular depreciation applicable to plant and machinery had also been allowed on the same assets. The earlier determination on materially identical facts was followed.

Conclusion: The electrical installations form an integral part of plant and machinery and qualify for the claimed additional depreciation. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the agricultural land transferred by the assessee was a capital asset liable to capital-gains taxation.

Analysis: The Revenue had accepted in the cases of co-owners of the same property that the land was beyond the prescribed municipal-limit distance. The population certificate recorded that the village population was 1,650, and the engineering certificate established that the land was 8.2 kilometres beyond the limits of Surat Municipal Corporation. These materials, which supported exclusion of the land from the definition of capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii), had not been properly considered.

Conclusion: The land was rural agricultural land and not a capital asset; consequently, the capital-gains addition based on the deemed-value provisions was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 148 on 24.04.2023 for assessment year 2019-20 was barred by limitation under section 149(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The ordinary three-year limitation expired on 31.03.2023. As the alleged escaped income was Rs. 4,00,000, the monetary threshold for the extended limitation under section 149(1)(b) was not met. The period allowed for responding to the notice under section 148A(b), ending with the reply on 14.04.2023, was excludable under the fifth proviso to section 149(1). The remaining period being less than seven days, it stood extended only to seven days under the sixth proviso, making 21.04.2023 the last permissible date for issuing the notice under section 148. The time available for passing an order under section 148A(d) could not independently enlarge the limitation prescribed for issuing notice under section 148. Treating the preliminary notice dated 29.03.2023 under section 148A(b) as the notice under section 148 was factually untenable.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 dated 24.04.2023 was issued beyond the statutory limitation, was invalid, and could not sustain the reassessment.

Issues: Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(c), founded on a transfer-pricing adjustment that had been set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication, could survive.

Analysis: The transfer-pricing adjustment forming the basis of the penalty had earlier been restored for fresh adjudication because the assessee's submissions and supporting evidence had not been considered, resulting in a breach of principles of natural justice. No finding on the merits of the adjustment had been made. The original adjustment consequently ceased to be a concluded determination, and fresh assessment and penalty proceedings had been initiated independently.

Conclusion: The penalty founded on the set-aside transfer-pricing adjustment could not survive and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.