Outcome: Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Issues: Whether the petitioners, facing prosecution in cases arising out of alleged tax evasion and connected offences, were entitled to regular bail after completion of investigation and filing of challan.

Analysis: The petitions were considered on settled bail principles, including the nature and gravity of accusation, the triple test of flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influence over witnesses, and the principle that bail is ordinarily the rule while refusal is the exception. The investigation had concluded and challan had been presented. In these circumstances, further custodial detention was not shown to be necessary, and the Court found no reason to deny bail merely because the allegations involved economic offences. The order also proceeded on the settled approach that liberty must be balanced against the needs of fair investigation and trial.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to regular bail and were ordered to be released on bail on furnishing the requisite bonds and sureties, subject to the stated conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Once investigation is complete and the custodial purpose is exhausted, regular bail may be granted in economic offence cases if the triple test is satisfied and continued detention is not necessary to secure trial or prevent misuse of liberty.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment order passed pursuant to an audit objection was barred by limitation under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act and therefore without jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the existence of an appealable remedy barred the writ petition when the impugned order was alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment order passed pursuant to an audit objection was barred by limitation under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act and therefore without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The reassessment was initiated under the audit-objection route, but the statutory limitation for assessment and reassessment remained governed by the five-year period prescribed for completion of assessment proceedings. For the relevant assessment year, that period had expired before the impugned reassessment order was passed. The order was therefore beyond the permissible time limit. An order passed after expiry of limitation is void and jurisdictionally defective, and the fact that the reassessment arose from an audit objection did not displace the limitation bar.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was barred by limitation and was void for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an appealable remedy barred the writ petition when the impugned order was alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar where the impugned order is claimed to be wholly without jurisdiction. Since the reassessment order was found to be time-barred and jurisdictionally invalid, the writ court could entertain the challenge notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy. The absence of effective prior service of the audit objection also supported interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment order and consequential demand notice were set aside, and the challenge succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment made beyond the statutory period of limitation is void and without jurisdiction, and such a jurisdictional defect can be corrected in writ proceedings notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy.

Issues: Whether the impugned demand and refund adjustment could be sustained without reopening the concluded assessment in the manner known to law and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The assessment for the relevant financial year had already been finalised and the tax liability on the disputed statutory forms stood quantified and paid. In that situation, any further demand could arise only through a lawful reassessment procedure under the governing VAT regime. The record did not disclose compliance with the reassessment mechanism, nor any show cause notice or hearing before raising the fresh demand and adjusting the refund against alleged dues. The impugned action was therefore inconsistent with the statutory scheme and offended the requirements of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned communications could not be sustained and were required to be quashed. The petitioner succeeded, and the admitted refund amount was directed to be refunded in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A fresh tax demand cannot be raised against a concluded assessment except by following the statutorily prescribed reassessment procedure and by complying with natural justice, including notice and hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were barred by limitation in the context of deemed assessment and proceedings under the incomplete-return provision; (ii) whether the assessment orders for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 were liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice and remitted for reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were barred by limitation in the context of deemed assessment and proceedings under the incomplete-return provision.

Analysis: Deemed assessment under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 arises only when the prescribed return, documents and proof of tax payment are duly furnished. Where a return is incomplete or incorrect, Section 22(4) applies. The limitation question was answered by applying the six-year period under Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 even to proceedings under Section 22(4). On that basis, the assessment orders for both years were found to have been issued after expiry of limitation.

Conclusion: The assessment orders for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were held to be barred by limitation and quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment orders for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 were liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice and remitted for reconsideration.

Analysis: The revision notices were issued just before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings, and the demand was largely based on mismatch data. In these circumstances, the petitioner was found to have been denied a meaningful opportunity to place documents and contest the demand, warranting interference and a fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The assessment orders for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 were quashed and the matters were remitted for reconsideration with an opportunity of reply and personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in part: the earlier assessment years were quashed on limitation, while the later assessment years were sent back for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner a hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The six-year limitation under Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 applies even to proceedings arising from incomplete or incorrect returns under Section 22(4), and an assessment based on mismatch data cannot be sustained without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the reassessment show-cause notices issued under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 were barred by limitation and therefore without jurisdiction, so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The returns filed by the dealer resulted in self-assessment under Section 26 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The Department had earlier initiated reassessment proceedings, but the subsequent steps either ended in closure or culminated in acceptance of the returns after appellate remand. In that background, the later notices issued in 2018 were not linked to any subsisting reassessment within the statutory time frame. Section 31 permitted reassessment only within the prescribed period from the expiry of the relevant year after the original assessment or reassessment, and that period had already elapsed. Since the notices were issued beyond limitation, the objection that the writ petition challenged only a show-cause notice did not prevent exercise of writ jurisdiction, because the action was wholly without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices were barred by limitation and were without jurisdiction; interference under Article 226 was justified.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the Department was restrained from proceeding on the basis of the impugned notices.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued after expiry of the statutory limitation period is without jurisdiction, and writ jurisdiction may be invoked to quash such notice notwithstanding the availability of alternate remedies.

Issues: (i) Whether the monthly returns filed by the assessee were incorrect in view of the binding advance ruling under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, thereby justifying assessment under Section 22(4); (ii) Whether the impugned assessment orders and notices were barred by limitation for the assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

Issue (i): Whether the monthly returns filed by the assessee were incorrect in view of the binding advance ruling under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, thereby justifying assessment under Section 22(4).

Analysis: The advance ruling under Section 48-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 had already concluded that the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under Entry 10 of Part-A of IV Schedule and was liable to pay tax on the imported textile fabric under Entry 11 of the II Schedule. The ruling was binding on both the assessee and the department, and in the absence of any challenge to that ruling, the returns filed by the assessee were contrary to the clarified legal position. The Court also held that once the returns were incorrect, the Assessing Officer was entitled to proceed under Section 22(4) after completion of the year.

Conclusion: The returns were treated as incorrect, and invocation of Section 22(4) was upheld in principle against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned assessment orders and notices were barred by limitation for the assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

Analysis: The Court held that if the returns had been correct, the reopening period under Section 27 would have expired on 31.10.2018, 31.10.2019 and 31.10.2020 respectively. It further held that the limitation relevant to the assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 had expired, whereas the proceedings for 2013-2014 were protected by the extension of limitation during the Covid-19 period. On that basis, the impugned orders and notices for the first two years were liable to be quashed, but the challenge for 2013-2014 did not succeed.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, and failed for assessment year 2013-2014.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed in part, with the impugned proceedings set aside for two assessment years and sustained for the remaining assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: A binding advance ruling under Section 48-A governs the parties, and where reassessment is otherwise time-barred, proceedings cannot be sustained for assessment years whose limitation has already expired.

Issues: (i) Whether the audit circular prescribing a three-month period for implementation of audit or inspection proposals curtailed the assessing authority's power to proceed against the petitioner; (ii) Whether the impugned assessment and consequential bank attachment were barred by limitation under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Issue (i): Whether the audit circular prescribing a three-month period for implementation of audit or inspection proposals curtailed the assessing authority's power to proceed against the petitioner.

Analysis: The circular governing implementation of audit or inspection proposals was treated as an and not as a source of enforceable limitation on assessment powers. The petitioner had not furnished the records required to show proper and complete returns, and the assessment proceedings were founded on the statutory scheme applicable where returns are incomplete, incorrect, or not supported by prescribed documents. In that setting, the mere lapse of three months from the audit report could not defeat the assessment process.

Conclusion: The circular did not bar the impugned proceedings, and this contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned assessment and consequential bank attachment were barred by limitation under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The assessment years in question were examined with reference to the statutory framework governing deemed assessment, best judgment assessment, and reopening. Since the petitioner had not established timely filing of returns or production of the prescribed supporting materials, no deemed assessment could be inferred for the purpose of limitation. The impugned order was treated as the first assessment under the relevant statutory provision, and the reopening period under the limitation provision was held to run accordingly. On that basis, the assessments for the relevant years were held to be within time, and the consequential notices attaching the bank accounts were also sustained.

Conclusion: The challenge on limitation failed, and the assessment and attachment were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed in full, with the impugned assessment orders and consequential recovery measures maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer does not establish timely and complete returns supported by prescribed documents, no deemed assessment can be assumed for computing limitation, and the statutory assessment and reopening powers must be tested under the applicable provisions governing incomplete or absent returns.

Issues: Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and is not a substitute for rehearing or an appeal. The challenged judgment had been rendered after considering the materials placed on record and the submissions of both sides. The additional documents relied upon in review were not part of the pleadings, and the attempt was, in substance, to revisit the merits of the earlier decision rather than demonstrate any patent error.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was made out, and the review petitions were not maintainable on merits.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment remained undisturbed and the review proceedings came to an end against the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: Review can be exercised only for a manifest error apparent on the face of the record and not for re-arguing the case or seeking a rehearing on merits.

Issues: Whether the assessee's ayurveda income was rightly brought to tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act on the basis of the assessee's own declaration and in the absence of substantiated accounts.

Analysis: The assessment and the appellate findings proceeded on the turnover figures and deductions disclosed by the assessee itself. The Tribunal held that expenses not specifically excluded under the charging provision could not be deducted from ayurveda income, and that a new plea regarding further deductions could not be entertained at that stage. The Court found no reason to interfere, as the assessee had not produced account-based material to dislodge the Tribunal's factual and legal conclusions.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the ayurveda income in taxable turnover was upheld against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the second appeal could be sustained when it did not record points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons, as required by the appellate .

Analysis: Rule 63(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 mandates that the appellate judgment must be in writing and must state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. The impugned order did not independently deal with the grounds raised before the Tribunal and proceeded without a reasoned determination. A judicial order affecting rights must disclose reasons to show application of mind and to satisfy the requirements of natural justice.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable for want of reasons and non-compliance with Rule 63(5); it was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Issues: Whether the prosecution against the director was maintainable in the absence of arraignment of the company, having regard to the statutory scheme governing offences by companies under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909.

Analysis: The complaint and prosecution report proceeded against the petitioner, who was a director of the importing company, but the company itself was not made an accused. Section 46B of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 contemplates that where an offence punishable under the Act is committed by a company, the company and the persons in charge of its affairs may be proceeded against, subject to the conditions stated in the provision. In a case based on company liability, the company as a juristic person is the primary offender and the liability of directors is derivative. In the absence of the company being arraigned, the foundation for vicarious criminal liability against the director was not available.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the petitioner was not maintainable and the criminal proceeding was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for offences committed by a company, arraignment of the company is a condition precedent for fastening vicarious liability on its directors or officers unless the statute clearly provides otherwise.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of unutilised input tax credit on capital goods under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and whether the rejection of the refund claim on limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The definition of input under Section 2(23) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 includes capital goods, and Section 18(3) governing zero-rating also covers such claims. The records showed that the refund claims had been made within the prescribed 180 days, but processing was deferred because of Circular No.22/2011, which was later superseded by Circular No.12 of 2018. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not be blamed for the delay in disposal of the claim, and the limitation objection could not be sustained on the reasoning adopted in the impugned order. At the same time, the entitlement to refund had to be verified on the basis of the relevant ITC and export documents, which required factual examination.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim on limitation was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the refund claim on merits, without examining limitation.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail during trial.

Analysis: The petitioner was in custody since 28.06.2023, investigation had been completed, the final report had already been filed, and none of the prosecution witnesses had been examined. Bail was also extended to similarly placed co-accused. The Court further noted that involvement in other criminal cases cannot, by itself, be the sole basis to refuse bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Completed investigation, absence of prosecution evidence at the trial stage, and parity with similarly situated co-accused justified grant of regular bail, while criminal antecedents alone were insufficient to deny it.

Issues: Whether the order of the Commissioner declining extension of time for payment under Section 8(1) of the Jammu & Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 could be interfered with on the ground that such extension would affect the pre-deposit requirement for entertaining an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats payment/recovery under Section 8 and appellate entertainability under Section 11 as distinct fields. The proviso to Section 8(1) empowers extension of the date of payment of the assessed demand, whereas the deposit requirements under Section 11(1), including the mandatory payment of the prescribed portion of assessed tax and penalty before an appeal can be entertained, operate independently. The explanation to Section 11(1) was construed to mean that where the assessee seeks time to pay the assessed demand under Section 8, the appellate requirements of Section 11(1) do not apply; it does not authorize waiver, suspension, or deferment of the statutory pre-deposit required for filing an appeal. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not produced supporting material before the assessing authority and had not filed returns asserting nil liability, which undermined the plea for equitable interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The petitioner was required to comply with the pre-deposit conditions under Section 11(1) to have the appeal entertained, and the Commissioner's refusal to extend time under Section 8(1) did not entitle the petitioner to bypass those requirements.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to input tax credit without the restriction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, read with Rule 23(6) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008, when the tax paid on the sale of manufactured goods exceeded the input tax credit claimed.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the application of the statutory restriction on input tax credit where manufactured goods are sold below cost price. The Tribunal found that the assessee had claimed input tax credit of Rs. 1,43,83,587/- while tax deposited on the sale of manufactured urea was Rs. 13,27,46,784/-, which was far higher than the credit claimed. On that factual foundation, the conditions for applying the reversal mechanism under Section 13(1)(f) were not attracted, and Rule 23(6) did not justify further reduction of the credit. The revision court found no reason to differ from that conclusion.

Conclusion: The restriction under Section 13(1)(f) did not apply, and the assessee was rightly allowed the input tax credit. The decision was in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the statutory conditions for curtailing input tax credit were not established on the facts found by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tax paid on the sale of manufactured goods is substantially higher than the input tax credit claimed, the reversal restriction on input tax credit for sales below cost price does not apply.

Issues: Whether the expression "authority concerned" in the earlier order directed submission of documents before the Tribunal or the assessing authority, and whether the reassessment and revisional orders passed thereafter could be sustained.

Analysis: The earlier order arose from challenges to the Tribunal's dismissal of the assessee's appeals and directed production of documents before the authority concerned for fresh consideration. Reading that direction with the prayer in the writ petitions and the context of the dispute, the expression was held to refer to the Tribunal and not the assessing authority. The reassessment orders made by the assessing authority were therefore treated as having been passed without jurisdiction. The subsequent revision proceedings premised on those reassessment orders were also found unsustainable, since they were founded on orders that could not stand in law. To avoid prejudice caused by the misconstruction of the earlier direction, the assessee was permitted to place the documents before the Tribunal for decision on merits.

Conclusion: The direction in the earlier order was held to mean the Tribunal, the reassessment orders passed by the assessing authority were treated as void, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits.