Issues: Whether a successful resolution applicant is required to discharge employees' provident-fund and gratuity dues, including statutory interest, notwithstanding an approved resolution plan.

Analysis: Provident-fund and gratuity dues are excluded from the liquidation estate and cannot be subjected to distribution under the insolvency waterfall. A resolution plan must comply with applicable law, while the statutory first charge for provident-fund dues prevails. Interest under Section 7Q is statutorily payable and is distinct from damages under Section 14B.

Conclusion: A successful resolution applicant must pay provident-fund and gratuity dues in full, together with interest payable under Section 7Q; such dues are not distributable under the insolvency waterfall.

Issues: (i) Whether duty under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 is to be computed on the total sale value or the amortised value of tools, dies and moulds separately sold to customers and used in manufacturing final products; (ii) Whether the captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE applies to tools, dies and moulds separately sold to customers and thereafter used in manufacture; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation, interest and penalty are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether duty under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 is to be computed on the total sale value or the amortised value of tools, dies and moulds separately sold to customers and used in manufacturing final products.

Analysis: Tools and dies are used repeatedly for producing final goods; their cost must consequently be spread over the goods produced through amortisation. The appellant had adopted this method where the tooling was customer-supplied, and the same method applies where the tooling was manufactured or procured by the appellant and separately invoiced to customers.

Conclusion: Only the amortised value of the tools, dies and moulds is includible in the assessable value of the final products. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE applies to tools, dies and moulds separately sold to customers and thereafter used in manufacture.

Analysis: The captive consumption exemption applies where goods are not sold and their value is absorbed in the value of the final products. Tools and dies sold to customers under separate invoices and thereafter used in manufacture stand on the same footing as tooling supplied by customers and do not qualify for that exemption.

Conclusion: The captive consumption exemption is unavailable. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation, interest and penalty are sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant had included amortised tooling value in comparable cases involving customer-supplied tools and dies. Its omission to include such value for tooling separately sold to customers could not therefore be attributed to a bona fide belief.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation is invocable; interest and penalty are consequently sustainable, subject to recalculation. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty liability must be recalculated by adopting the amortised tooling value in the assessable value of the final products, with corresponding recalculation of interest and penalty; the claims to captive-use exemption and limitation protection fail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tools, dies or moulds sold to customers are subsequently used in manufacture, their amortised value must be included in the assessable value of the final products, and such tooling does not qualify for captive consumption exemption.

Issues: Whether import transactions backed by substantial advance payments made before the restriction on gold imports were entitled to transitional protection under Paragraph 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023.

Analysis: Paragraph 1.05(b) protects imports made before a policy restriction and extends protection to pre-existing commitments supported by irrevocable commercial letters of credit. The exception is intended to protect bona fide transactions concluded before the restrictive notification. An irrevocable commercial letter of credit provides payment security through banking arrangements; however, advance payments exceeding 90% of the invoice value provided greater security to the overseas seller. The petitioners established through their business records and prior transactions that they were regular bona fide traders in precious metals and that the impugned transactions were not devised to circumvent the changed import policy. While the restriction itself was a policy decision not warranting interference, its transitional application required a purposive rather than mechanical construction. Notifications issued as delegated legislation ordinarily operate prospectively unless retrospective operation is statutorily authorised.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Paragraph 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 for the identified pre-notification transactions supported by substantial advance payments.

Issues: Whether provisional release of seized betel nuts was warranted under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The initial test report identified the representative samples as resembling Indonesian areca nuts and recorded mould infestation. Although a subsequent re-sampled report indicated Indian origin, it did not address mould infestation. A further food laboratory report found the nuts damaged by mould and insects beyond prescribed limits and classified them as sub-standard and unsafe. The evidence therefore did not establish an unequivocal case of Indian origin, and an appellate statutory remedy was available.

Conclusion: Provisional release was not warranted; the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had locus standi to challenge the Way Leave Permission granted for revival of the appellant's water pipeline; (ii) Whether the retrospective renewal of an expired Way Leave Permission was lawful despite intervening rights, absence of a safety audit and the insolvency resolution process; (iii) Whether the findings of fraud and collusion against the appellant and Railway authorities were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had locus standi to challenge the Way Leave Permission granted for revival of the appellant's water pipeline.

Analysis: The respondent had constructed and operated railway underpasses under agreements with the Railway authorities. Its recorded safety concerns showed a real possibility that pipeline restoration and associated construction could adversely affect those underpasses and its adjoining property. A person facing possible adverse civil consequences has sufficient standing to challenge the administrative permission; the Railway authorities also owed a duty to ensure that later permissions did not impair existing authorised works.

Conclusion: The respondent had locus standi to maintain the writ petition. This issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective renewal of an expired Way Leave Permission was lawful despite intervening rights, absence of a safety audit and the insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: The original permission expired by efflux of time before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process. An expired permission could not be retrospectively renewed, and the NCLT lacked jurisdiction under the insolvency framework to revive, renew or preserve a railway-land permission that had already lapsed; any fresh permission lay within the Railway authorities' competence. The proposed overhead structure was also inconsistent with Clause 1033(12) of the Indian Railway Code for Engineering Department. In view of the respondent's specific objections and the potential safety implications for existing underpasses and the surrounding industrial area, a comprehensive safety audit and an opportunity of hearing were necessary before grant of the permission.

Conclusion: The retrospective renewal or revival of the expired Way Leave Permission was illegal. This issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the findings of fraud and collusion against the appellant and Railway authorities were justified.

Analysis: Fraud and fraudulent collusion are serious charges requiring proof on proper material beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot substitute proof. The illegality of the permission did not by itself establish fraud or collusion.

Conclusion: The findings and observations of fraud and collusion were unwarranted and stand expunged. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The invalidity of the Way Leave grant and consequential actions remains undisturbed, but the adverse imputations of fraud and collusion are deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative authority cannot retrospectively renew an expired permission so as to affect intervening rights without jurisdiction, a proper safety assessment and compliance with natural justice; insolvency resolution proceedings do not revive rights that had lapsed before commencement of the process.

Issues: Whether a claim for interest on delayed GST refund can be pursued in writ jurisdiction before recourse to the statutory authority.

Analysis: Sections 54 and 56 of the GST Act, 2017 provide the statutory framework for refund and interest on delayed refund. The question of entitlement to such interest must initially be raised before the authority constituted under the statute. Recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available only after statutory remedies have been exhausted.

Conclusion: The claim for interest on delayed refund must first be adjudicated by the appropriate statutory authority; writ jurisdiction may be invoked thereafter if the aggrieved party remains dissatisfied.

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and the final tax order should be entertained despite the issue of validity having been settled and an appellate remedy being available.

Analysis: The constitutional challenge stood covered by the Supreme Court decision upholding Section 16(2)(c). The impugned final order was appealable under the statutory appellate mechanism.

Outcome: The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised against rejection of an application for cancellation of GST registration when a statutory appellate remedy is available.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides an appellate remedy against the impugned order. Although the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, its existence is material to the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction, particularly where the allegations concerning the registration require factual inquiry and appraisal of the record. No opinion was expressed on the merits of either side's case.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not exercised, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable where the Commissioner's review order was allegedly passed beyond six months from communication of the first appellate authority's order.

Analysis: Section 112(3) prescribes the period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal and does not prescribe any time-limit for the Commissioner to review the first appellate authority's order. The appeal was filed within the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The maintainability objection was rejected, and the appeal was admitted for hearing on merits in favour of Revenue.

Issues: Whether the service-tax proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The last transaction reflected in Form 26AS for the relevant financial year was dated 30.09.2013. The show-cause notice was issued on 12.10.2018, beyond even the extended period of five years. The proceedings were therefore unsustainable without examination of the merits of the demand.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and the consequential service-tax proceedings were barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether notices issued under Section 74(9) of GST Act, 2017 were valid despite failing to disclose foundational facts supporting allegations of fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended recovery mechanism on allegations of fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression requires the notice itself to disclose the foundational facts leading to such inference. Mechanical use of those expressions, without sufficient reasons demonstrating application of mind, is inadequate. The impugned notices did not assign sufficient reasons or disclose the requisite foundational facts.

Conclusion: The notices were invalid and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the supplier's certificate concerning receipt of supplies and payment of GST warranted reconsideration of the disputed tax demand.

Analysis: The certificate indicated that supplies were made to the petitioner and related taxes were paid, providing prima facie support for the claim. However, it omitted the GSTIN particulars of the recipient erroneously reflected in the supplier's GSTR-1; a corrected certificate containing those particulars was considered necessary for fresh adjudication.

Outcome: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration upon the stipulated deposit.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54F for construction of a residential house and the quantum of such deduction.

Analysis: The local authority certificate and registered valuer's report established that the residential house was constructed within three years of transfer of the agricultural land, satisfying the conditions for deduction. The valuation report supported construction expenditure of Rs. 33,64,000. The claimed expenditure on furniture and fixtures lacked sufficient supporting evidence and was excluded.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54F of Rs. 32,21,030, with long-term capital gain determined at Rs. 6,07,970; the claim relating to furniture and fixtures was disallowed.

Issues: Whether, for Assessment Year 2025-26, rebate under Section 87A is available against tax on short-term capital gains taxable at the special rate under Section 111A where the taxpayer is governed by Section 115BAC(1A) and total income does not exceed the prescribed threshold.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 87A, applicable from Assessment Year 2024-25, grants rebate to a resident individual covered by Section 115BAC(1A) whose total income is within the prescribed limit, without excluding income taxable under Section 111A. The exclusion of special-rate income from the rebate was introduced by the Finance Act 2025 only from Assessment Year 2026-27 and could not be applied to Assessment Year 2025-26.

Conclusion: Full rebate under Section 87A is available against tax including tax attributable to short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A for Assessment Year 2025-26, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the challenge to cancellation of registration and rejection of its revocation should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal, where disputed questions of fact arise.

Analysis: A statutory appellate remedy was available against both the cancellation order and the order rejecting revocation. The impugned order was defectively drafted and undated, but the date of its service was directed to be treated as its date for purposes of appeal. The disputed factual question concerning production of electronic devices was left open for determination by the appellate authority.

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

Issues: Whether the GST liability order, allegedly passed without granting a personal hearing, complied with Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The facts were not shown to be distinguishable from an earlier decision concerning the same requirement of personal hearing.

Outcome: The writ petition was decided in terms of the earlier decision.

Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction could validly be exercised in respect of the assessment order for failure to verify the deductibility of expenses allegedly paid without tax deduction at source.

Analysis: Revision under Section 263 applies where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The recorded tax-deduction-at-source liability and the claimed expenses required verification from the assessee's records. The assertion that a substantial part of the expenditure represented reimbursements, without supporting material establishing the deduction and deposit of tax, did not answer the verification deficiency. The assessment was therefore made without adequate enquiry on this issue.

Conclusion: The assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the tax-deduction-at-source expenditure issue, and revision under Section 263 was valid.

Issues: Validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB(1) where the notice did not specify the applicable clause or default.

Analysis: Section 271AAB(1) prescribes distinct factual conditions and penalty rates under clauses (a), (b) and (c). By virtue of Section 271AAB(3), the notice requirement under Section 274 applies to such penalty proceedings. A notice which merely proposes penalty under Section 271AAB, without identifying the applicable clause or precise statutory default, does not enable an effective defence. Subsequent hearing notices cannot cure this foundational defect, and participation in the proceedings cannot confer jurisdiction where valid initiation is absent.

Conclusion: The notice was defective and invalid; consequently, initiation of the penalty proceedings and the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB(1) were vitiated, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether gross profit could be estimated and an addition made without rejection of the books of account or identification of defects therein; (ii) Whether the gross-profit addition could be sustained when it was made beyond the approved scope of limited scrutiny without conversion to complete scrutiny.

Issue (i): Whether gross profit could be estimated and an addition made without rejection of the books of account or identification of defects therein.

Analysis: Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires rejection of the books on cogent grounds and material defects before profits may be estimated. A mere fall in the gross-profit ratio compared with an earlier year does not justify estimation. The explained adverse market conditions, reduced production and sales, and continuing fixed overheads supported the decline in profitability.

Conclusion: The gross-profit estimation and consequential addition were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the gross-profit addition could be sustained when it was made beyond the approved scope of limited scrutiny without conversion to complete scrutiny.

Analysis: The scrutiny was confined to verification concerning tax deduction or deposit defaults and the related business loss. The gross-profit examination lay outside that authorised scope, and the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny was not followed.

Conclusion: The gross-profit addition made outside the limited-scrutiny scope was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The gross-profit addition was deleted and consequential relief was required to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Profit estimation requires a reasoned rejection of books of account based on material defects, and an addition beyond limited scrutiny cannot be sustained without valid conversion to complete scrutiny.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice and consequential assessment were valid when initiated by an Income-tax Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction; (ii) Whether penalty for under-reporting of income could survive after the underlying reassessment and addition were quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice and consequential assessment were valid when initiated by an Income-tax Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction.

Analysis: Under the CBDT jurisdictional instructions issued pursuant to Section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, jurisdiction over a non-corporate assessee in a mofussil area having returned income above the prescribed threshold vested in the ACIT/DCIT, not the ITO. The notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148, and the order under Section 148A, were nevertheless issued by the ITO. The binding jurisdictional precedent established that a notice under Section 148 issued by an officer without jurisdiction is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates the consequential reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and the consequential reassessment were invalid, and the assessment order was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for under-reporting of income could survive after the underlying reassessment and addition were quashed.

Analysis: The penalty under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was imposed with reference to an addition made in the reassessment order. Once that assessment order and the underlying addition ceased to exist, the foundation for the penalty was extinguished.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 270A was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Initiation of reassessment by an officer not vested with jurisdiction nullified the assessment, and the penalty founded solely on the resulting addition could not subsist.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction under binding jurisdictional allocation instructions is invalid and cannot sustain consequential reassessment or penalty founded on that assessment.