Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration could be sustained where the order failed to consider the assessee's reply asserting that an earlier show-cause notice on the same grounds had been dropped.

Analysis: The show-cause notice invoked Rule 21(b) on the allegation of invoices being issued without supply. The reply specifically asserted that earlier proceedings founded on the same reasons had already been dropped and that no further particulars or fresh queries were provided. The cancellation order did not address this material response and merely recorded the allegation of circular transactions. A registration-cancellation order must disclose consideration of the reply and contain reasons dealing with material objections.

Conclusion: The cancellation order could not stand because it was unreasoned and did not consider the material reply; the matter requires fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether sufficient cause existed to direct urgent listing of the appeal without awaiting completion of ordinary Registry scrutiny.

Analysis: The procedural rules preserve inherent powers, recognise urgent matters and early-hearing applications, and permit exemption from procedural requirements where sufficient cause is shown to render substantial justice. The pleaded continuing inability to conduct business following cancellation of GST registration established urgency; the exemption was confined to Registry scrutiny and did not dispense with substantive statutory requirements.

Outcome: The application for urgent hearing was allowed, and the main appeal was directed to be listed for admission.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated after a completed scrutiny assessment were invalid as being founded on a change of opinion and on grounds not disclosed in the recorded reasons.

Analysis: The original scrutiny had specifically addressed the share sale, its valuation, the purchaser's identity and creditworthiness, the transaction's genuineness, and the consequential capital-gains exemption claim. The claim was accepted after detailed inquiry under the scrutiny assessment. An assessment order need not discuss every query or record detailed reasons while accepting a claim; acceptance following inquiry establishes formation of an opinion. The subsequent notice sought to reopen the assessment on the same share transaction and material, and was therefore founded on a change of opinion. Further, the proposed challenge to the exemption claim based on the nature of the agreement for acquisition of residential property was absent from the show-cause notice. Recorded reasons cannot be supplemented or improved through an affidavit or oral submissions.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid as based on a change of opinion, and the notice under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), and the consequential notice under Section 148 were quashed.

Issues: Whether a reassessment notice could validly be issued in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist upon merger with the petitioner.

Analysis: The merger had been sanctioned with effect from 01.04.2019, and the erstwhile entity no longer existed when the notice for assessment year 2022-23 was issued. The revenue authorities had also been informed of the merger, and the petitioner had conducted the business thereafter. A notice issued against the dissolved entity was therefore legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice issued in the name of the non-existent merged entity was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether income-tax arrears not claimed before the committee of creditors survive after approval of a resolution plan by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: An approved resolution plan is binding upon all stakeholders. Its purpose is to enable the corporate debtor to revive on a fresh slate without being exposed to claims that were not included in the plan. As no claim concerning the impugned tax arrears was placed before the committee of creditors or incorporated in the approved resolution plan, those arrears stood frozen upon approval of the plan.

Conclusion: The income-tax claims not forming part of the approved resolution plan do not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether late-payment charges described as interest on delayed payment for supplied industrial gases constitute a taxable declared service.

Analysis: A declared service must involve consideration. Amounts payable as damages, liquidated damages or penalties for an undesired act, breach or unanticipated situation are consequences of breach and not consideration for any obligation to tolerate an act or situation. Late-payment charges in the nature of such damages, notwithstanding their description as interest, lack the requisite element of consideration.

Conclusion: Late-payment charges received as damages for delayed payment do not constitute a declared service and are not liable to service tax. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the appellant, whose writ petition concerning forfeiture of earnest money deposit was relegated to the statutory remedy, should be permitted to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal notwithstanding the expiry of the ordinary limitation period.

Analysis: Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against measures taken by the secured creditor. Rule 8(7)(f) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 requires disclosure of facts necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of the property; whether non-disclosure of a subsisting attachment falls within that requirement, and whether it was material to the auction purchaser, are matters for the Tribunal. The appellant had pursued the writ remedy diligently after refusal of refund, the Bank had objected only on the ground of alternative remedy, and the challenge disclosed an arguable case.

Conclusion: The appellant may file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within three weeks, which shall be accepted without requiring an application for condonation of delay; the Tribunal shall decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where the investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed, and the trial is in progress.

Analysis: The investigation had concluded, and the matter had progressed to trial after filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges. Custodial interrogation was therefore no longer required.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted, subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer, continued cooperation, and appearance before the jurisdictional court.

Issues: Whether the order giving effect to the appellate order could stand despite denial of the expressly contemplated opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Analysis: The operative portion of the order dated 29.03.2025 contemplated a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It was conceded that no such hearing had been afforded. The earlier High Court orders had also specifically required an opportunity of hearing. Denial of that opportunity warranted reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, with all contentions kept open.

Conclusion: The order dated 29.03.2025 and the impugned High Court judgment were set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered after hearing the assessee. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an order initiating reassessment could be sustained where the assessee's uploaded reply was not considered and the time to respond was curtailed.

Analysis: The statutory response period was curtailed despite time being available to complete the process. The assessee had sought further time before expiry of the curtailed deadline and uploaded its reply before the order was made. Non-consideration of that reply caused prejudice and constituted an irregularity violating principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The order under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were set aside, with a direction to make a fresh determination after considering the reply; this is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest expenditure attributable to borrowings allegedly used for acquiring land was disallowable where the land was used as a business storage yard and sufficient interest-free funds were available.

Analysis: Section 36(1)(iii) allows interest on capital borrowed for business purposes, while its proviso restricts deduction up to the date on which an acquired asset is first put to use. The evidence of deliveries, unloading, electricity consumption and photographs supported the use of the open land as a storage yard for bulky trading stock. Construction of an additional structure on part of the land, shown as capital work-in-progress, did not negate the business use of the remaining land. No specific borrowing or quantifiable interest was identified as directly attributable to construction of the incomplete structure. Further, capital and interest-free loans were sufficient to meet the land cost; in the absence of a direct nexus between interest-bearing borrowings and the investment, the investment was presumed to have been made from interest-free funds.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication could be sustained where, after cancellation of registration, the show-cause notice was served only through the common portal without physical service.

Analysis: The show-cause notice was issued more than four years after cancellation of registration and was uploaded only on the common portal. The binding departmental circular required physical service upon persons against whom adjudication proceedings were initiated after cancellation of registration. A person whose registration has been cancelled may not operate the portal and may consequently remain unaware of proceedings commenced through it.

Conclusion: Service solely through the common portal after cancellation of registration was insufficient in the circumstances, and the resulting ex parte adjudication was invalid.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of as the refund claim was entertained and allowed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's access to furnish Form GSTR-1 on the GST common portal should be restored pending consideration of the departmental proceedings.

Analysis: The request for restoration required consideration of the petitioner's response and supporting documents in the pending departmental adjudication. No finding was rendered on the allegations concerning the registration or on the petitioner's entitlement to portal access.

Outcome: The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation to the issuing authority, which must decide it by a reasoned order after personal hearing; portal activation was directed only if the authority finds the petitioner to be a bona fide registered proprietor.

Issues: Whether an adjudication under the GST law could be sustained without affording a personal hearing where an adverse decision was contemplated.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The show-cause notices did not provide the petitioner a personal hearing. The notices and adjudication order were uploaded only under the portal tab titled 'Additional Notice and Orders', which resulted in a delayed reply and supported the procedural challenge.

Conclusion: The adjudication was invalid for denial of the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing and required fresh determination after considering the reply.

Issues: Whether petitioner No. 1 was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The allegations prima facie disclosed the petitioner's involvement in a conspiracy involving forged invoices issued in the names of non-existent firms, collection of tax amounts without their deposit, and resultant wrongful loss. The investigation was at a nascent stage, and custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the manner of commission of the offences and to obtain material establishing the petitioner's connection with the fictitious firm. Pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy to be exercised cautiously, and no exceptional circumstance was established.

Conclusion: Petitioner No. 1 was not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Issues: Whether cognizance of alleged offences for non-compliance with summons could be taken without proof that the summons had been duly served and received.

Analysis: Sections 206 and 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 required a sustainable basis for alleging deliberate or wilful non-compliance with summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The available material contained only tracking records and did not establish due service or acknowledgment of the summons. Mere issuance of summons, without proof of service, could not establish deliberate disobedience or evasion, nor disclose a prima facie case for taking cognizance.

Conclusion: The refusal to take cognizance was sustained, as absence of proof of due service of summons precluded a prima facie allegation of wilful non-compliance.

Outcome: The application for condonation of delay and the Special Leave Petition were dismissed on the ground of delay, with questions of law left open.

Issues: Whether revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be continued and an order passed against a corporate debtor during the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Admission of the corporate debtor into the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 triggered the statutory moratorium. Section 14 prohibits institution or continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor during that period, and Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent enactments. The jurisdictional precedent applied establishes that income-tax proceedings cannot be initiated or continued while the moratorium operates, though proceedings may be revived after its cessation if permissible in law.

Conclusion: The revisional order passed during the subsistence of the moratorium was unsustainable; the revisional proceedings may be revived and reframed after cessation of the moratorium in accordance with law.