Issues: (i) whether bail already granted to the respondent could be cancelled on account of subsequent conduct and supervening circumstances indicating misuse of the concession of bail; (ii) whether the hostile turnaround of material witnesses justified recalling them for further cross-examination to secure a fair trial.

Issue (i): whether bail already granted to the respondent could be cancelled on account of subsequent conduct and supervening circumstances indicating misuse of the concession of bail.

Analysis: The Court found a prima facie nexus between the respondent's alleged influence over witnesses and the sudden retraction by the most material witnesses after their examination-in-chief. It reiterated that, though interference with a bail order is normally narrow, bail can be withdrawn where cogent and overwhelming circumstances show abuse of liberty, witness intimidation, tampering with evidence, or other developments that jeopardise a fair trial. On the facts, the respondent's post-bail conduct and the changed testimony of crucial witnesses justified cancellation.

Conclusion: Bail was cancelled and the respondent was directed to surrender and remain in custody.

Issue (ii): whether the hostile turnaround of material witnesses justified recalling them for further cross-examination to secure a fair trial.

Analysis: The Court held that witness hostility in the circumstances of the case warranted the exercise of constitutional and statutory powers to ensure that the truth could be effectively tested. It observed that recalling witnesses under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is permissible when required to meet the ends of justice and to protect the integrity of the trial, though such power must be exercised sparingly and not to fill lacunae in the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The material witnesses were directed to be recalled for further cross-examination.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the bail order was set aside, the respondent's liberty was withdrawn, and ancillary directions were issued to secure a fair and uninfluenced trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be cancelled where supervening circumstances after release show misuse of liberty and a real risk of influencing witnesses or undermining a fair trial, and the Court may invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to recall material witnesses when necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Issues: Whether additional income declared as current-year business income following a search could be treated as unexplained money and taxed under the special rate applicable to such income.

Analysis: The declared amount represented cash found during the ongoing accounting year. The assessee was engaged in real-estate business and disclosed the amount in the return as business income. The record did not establish a source other than that business activity. The special taxation provision applies where income falls within the statutory categories of unexplained income; it does not apply merely because income is voluntarily offered after a search when its business source is disclosed.

Conclusion: The additional income could not be taxed as unexplained money at the special rate and was liable to be assessed under the normal provisions, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition notification under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 was void for want of notice under Section 52(2) to the purchasers whose names were not mutated in the revenue record; (ii) whether a suit for injunction simpliciter, without a declaratory relief and without impleading the State, was maintainable in respect of the acquired land; (iii) whether the civil suit was barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Issue: Whether the acquisition notification under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 was void for want of notice under Section 52(2) to the purchasers whose names were not mutated in the revenue record?

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Chapter VII of the 1959 Act requires prior notice to the owner and other interested persons before publication of the acquisition notification, followed by hearing and determination, after which vesting takes place under Section 52(4). The Court held that where the purchasers were not recorded in the revenue records, and notice had been served on the recorded khatedars, non-service on the unrecorded purchasers did not by itself render the acquisition notification void. The presumption of regularity of official acts under Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied, and the land could not be treated as vested invalidly merely because the purchasers claimed title through unmutated sale deeds.

Conclusion: The acquisition notification was not void on the ground of non-service of notice on the unrecorded purchasers.

Issue: Whether a suit for injunction simpliciter, without a declaratory relief and without impleading the State, was maintainable in respect of the acquired land?

Analysis: Once the acquisition notification under Section 52(1) stood published, the land vested in the State under Section 52(4), creating a cloud on the plaintiff's title. Applying the principles governing suits for injunction and declaration, a bare injunction suit was held not maintainable when validity of the acquisition and title to the land were in issue. The State was also treated as a necessary party because the acquisition was undertaken by it and the challenge required disclosure of the steps taken for acquisition and vesting. The suit, as framed, was therefore held to suffer from non-maintainability.

Conclusion: The suit for injunction simpliciter, without declaration and without impleading the State, was not maintainable.

Issue: Whether the civil suit was barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955?

Analysis: The surviving dispute concerned agricultural land, and the Tenancy Act provides for suits and injunction-related remedies before the revenue courts under the Third Schedule. The Court held that, in view of the statutory scheme, the relief of injunction could be pursued in the revenue forum and the civil court's jurisdiction stood excluded for such a claim. Accordingly, the civil suit was held to be barred by the Tenancy Act.

Conclusion: The civil suit was barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the decree in favour of the respondents was left undisturbed.

Concurring Opinion: Manoj Misra, J. held that the acquisition was not void, the civil suit was not maintainable in respect of the acquired land, and the suit was also barred under the Tenancy Act, 1955, so the appellant's appeal deserved to be allowed and the decree of the Trial Court restored.

Issues: Whether the assessment year 2011-12 could be brought within the scope of proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the satisfaction note was recorded on 18.12.2017.

Analysis: The first proviso to section 153C(1) requires the relevant date for computing the six-year period to be the date on which the seized books, documents or assets are received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person. On the facts, the satisfaction note was recorded on 18.12.2017, making the relevant search year 2018-19 and the permissible six assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18. Assessment year 2011-12 therefore fell outside the statutory window. In view of the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 153C, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make assessment or reassessment for that year.

Conclusion: The proceedings under section 153C were not maintainable for assessment year 2011-12 and the assessment order was set aside, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Issues: Whether the show cause notice dated 03.05.2023 and subsequent email dated 28.09.2023 seeking particulars and proposing prosecution under provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be quashed without providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and without considering the petitioner's reply of 20.06.2023.

Analysis: The petition challenges a notice requesting particulars and intimating possible prosecution for alleged belated remittance of TDS. The records show the petitioner filed a reply dated 20.06.2023 and the respondents subsequently communicated by email offering a final opportunity to furnish details. The Court examined whether adjudicatory action, including any decision on initiating prosecution, was taken without affording a personal hearing and without considering the petitioner's earlier reply. In view of the factual sequence and the parties' submissions, the Court found that the respondents should consider the petitioner's reply and afford a personal hearing before taking any coercive or prosecutorial step.

Conclusion: The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's reply dated 20.06.2023, grant a personal hearing to the petitioner who shall produce necessary documents, and thereafter decide the matter afresh taking into account the judgments produced before the Court. The writ petition is disposed of by directing consideration and hearing; no costs.

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the agreements entered into by the appellant, purportedly to split the consideration for supply of imported equipment and services, were sham agreements designed to evade customs duty.
• Whether the denial of the EPCG scheme benefits for certain imports was justified, particularly in relation to the location of the 'H Blast' furnace and the nature of imported goods as spares.
• Whether the confirmed demands for differential customs duty and confiscation under the Customs Act were sustainable on merits and within the limitation period.
• Whether penalties imposed on the appellants under various sections of the Customs Act were legally sustainable.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Alleged Sham Agreements and Customs Duty Evasion

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Customs Valuation Rules, 1998, and interpretative notes for Rule 4(1) were central to determining whether the agreements were sham and whether the consideration should be added to the value of imported goods.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the agreements were not sham. The detailed offers and agreements from the pre-first offer to the final offer demonstrated a clear demarcation of services and goods, negating the claim of a single lump-sum contract later bifurcated to evade duty.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the chronological documentation of offers and agreements, which consistently separated imported goods and services. The Tribunal also considered the payment of service tax on designs and drawings, which the revenue accepted.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules and found that the agreements were genuine and not designed to evade customs duty.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the agreements were fraudulent by highlighting the detailed planning and execution of contracts.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the confirmed demand of Rs. 32,76,67,821 was not sustainable on merits.

2. Denial of EPCG Scheme Benefits

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Foreign Trade Policy and the EPCG scheme under Notification No. 97/2004-Cus were relevant. The Tribunal also referenced the Bombay High Court decision in Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. regarding the power of licensing authorities.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the DGFT to include 'H Blast' in the EPCG license were valid, and the customs authorities had no power to challenge these amendments.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the DGFT had approved the amendments to the EPCG license, and the imported goods were permissible as spares under the Foreign Trade Policy.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and the Customs Act, concluding that the denial of EPCG benefits was unjustified.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's arguments regarding the improper use of the EPCG scheme, emphasizing the DGFT's authority and the appellant's compliance with the policy.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the confirmed demand of Rs. 9,76,71,819 related to the EPCG scheme.

3. Limitation and Penalties

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 111(m), 111(o), 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, were relevant for confiscation and penalties. The limitation period for issuing demands was also considered.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the demand was issued beyond the permissible period and that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant to justify the extended period.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that all transactions were documented and transparent, and the appellant fulfilled export obligations under the EPCG scheme.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the relevant sections of the Customs Act and found the demand and penalties unsustainable due to the lack of suppression and the limitation period.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's claim of suppression, emphasizing the appellant's compliance with procedural requirements.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order and penalties, finding them unsustainable both on merits and due to limitation.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The Revenue has built the present case purely on presumptions and assumptions basis, without actually verifying the documentary evidence placed before them."
• Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established that detailed and documented contractual arrangements, when transparent and compliant with legal frameworks, cannot be dismissed as sham for customs duty evasion without substantive evidence.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the confirmed demands and penalties, allowing the appeals of all appellants, including the main appellant TISCO, on both merits and limitation grounds.

Issues: Whether the order cancelling GST registration could be sustained when it did not disclose reasons or clearly record the alleged default of non-filing of returns, and whether the cancellation was liable to be set aside with consequential restoration of registration on compliance.

Analysis: The order impugned did not state any reason or clearly record the allegation that returns had not been filed for a continuous period of six months. It also did not reflect consideration of the reply said to have been filed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the cancellation order was found unsustainable. The Court accepted the undertaking that tax, interest, and penalty would be paid and directed restoration of registration upon filing of the pending returns and payment within the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed, with restoration of registration made conditional upon compliance with the stated requirements.

Issues: Whether the omission of Clause 5A and the Second Schedule in the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 by the 2009 amendment operated retrospectively so as to extinguish the additional price claims already accrued to cane growers, and whether the accrued rights could be defeated on the ground that the amendment was made without a saving clause.

Analysis: The right to additional price under the pre-amendment control order was treated as a statutory right that accrued on supply of sugarcane. The amendment substituting fair and remunerative price for statutory minimum price did not express any intention to destroy rights and liabilities that had already arisen under the earlier regime. The Court applied the principle that omission, repeal and deletion are functionally equivalent for interpretive purposes, but held that such amendment operates prospectively where vested rights have already crystallized. The absence of a savings clause did not help the appellant, because the accrued entitlement of cane growers could not be obliterated by the later amendment.

Conclusion: The omission of Clause 5A did not retrospectively extinguish claims that had accrued prior to 22.10.2009, and the challenge to the demand based on the earlier regime failed.

Final Conclusion: The amended control order was held to operate prospectively, and the vested rights of cane growers under the earlier price mechanism were preserved for the relevant period.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment omitting a provision does not retrospectively destroy rights that had already accrued under the earlier statutory regime unless the legislation clearly indicates such an intention.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction permitting payment of the tax arrears in six equal monthly installments, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in case of default.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the writ petition challenging the investigation order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, is maintainable at a premature stage.
• Whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) formed a prima facie opinion based on sufficient grounds for directing an investigation into alleged cartelization and bid-rigging by the appellant and other cement companies.
• Whether the CCI's investigation order and subsequent notice were issued within the permissible limitation period as per the Competition Act, 2002.
• Whether the appellant was denied principles of natural justice by not being provided with certain documents relied upon by the CCI.
• Whether the CCI's order and the investigation by the Director General (DG) amounted to a roving and fishing enquiry.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Competition Commission of India Vs. Bharti Airtel to argue the maintainability of a writ petition challenging an investigation order.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court held that the writ petition was filed at a premature stage, as the investigation order under Section 26(1) is administrative and not determinative of rights.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable at this stage.

Issue 2: Prima Facie Opinion for Investigation

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The CCI formed a prima facie opinion under Sections 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c), and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the CCI's order was based on comparative statements and allegations of identical pricing and market allocation among the cement companies.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The CCI relied on comparative pricing data provided by ONGC, indicating possible collusion.
• Conclusions: The court upheld the CCI's prima facie opinion, finding no grounds to interfere with the investigation order.

Issue 3: Limitation Period for Investigation Order

• Relevant Legal Framework: The appellant argued that the information was filed beyond the permissible period as per the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the CCI's order was not barred by limitation, as the information was filed within the permissible period.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the investigation order was within the limitation period.

Issue 4: Principles of Natural Justice

• Relevant Legal Framework: The appellant claimed denial of natural justice due to non-provision of certain documents.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the CCI's order clearly stated the grounds for investigation and that the appellant was allowed to inspect the documents.
• Conclusions: The court held that there was no violation of natural justice.

Issue 5: Roving and Fishing Enquiry

• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the investigation was based on specific allegations and data, not a roving enquiry.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the investigation was justified and not a fishing expedition.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes: The court noted, "In view of the foregoing, the Commission prima facie notes that the aforementioned 4 impugned tenders were rigged through collusion/cartelization among the OPs... thus prima facie appear to be in contravention of provision of Sections 3[3][a], 3[3][b], 3[3][c], and 3[3][d], read with Section 3[1] of the Act."
• Core Principles Established: The court reinforced that investigation orders under Section 26(1) are administrative and not subject to detailed judicial review at the preliminary stage.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the CCI's order and the investigation's continuation, emphasizing that the appellant's concerns were premature.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the High Court's order quashing the show cause notices on the ground of delay and laches.

Analysis: The assessment period was 2011-2016, while the show cause notice was issued on 24.03.2021, after a delay of about 5 to 10 years. No explanation was offered for the belated issuance of the notices. The High Court had quashed the notices as barred by delay and laches, and no reason was found to disturb that conclusion.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the special leave petition was dismissed.