Issues: Whether an accrued liability towards share of profit payable to investors was deductible under the mercantile system despite remaining unpaid at the end of the relevant previous year.

Analysis: The expenditure was recorded pursuant to the arrangement with investors, and its nature and accrual were not disputed. Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies payment-basis treatment only to specified liabilities, which did not include the liability in question. Non-payment or insufficiency of funds, without material showing that the liability had not accrued or had ceased, did not make it contingent. Subsequent discharge of the outstanding amounts supported the existence of the accrued liability.

Conclusion: The accrued liability was allowable as a deduction, and the deletion of the disallowance was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether only the profit element, and at what rate, was taxable on identified unaccounted sales, including cash sales for assessment year 2021-22; (ii) Whether cash salary payments and cash payments to suppliers could be separately added after estimation of profit from the same unrecorded trading activity; (iii) Whether alleged cash or on-money payments for Nathani Heights flats and Platinum Mall shops were proved as investments of the assessee; (iv) Whether cash found at the business premises was unexplained money taxable in the assessee's hands; (v) Whether the entire physical stock, rather than the unrecorded valuation difference, could be added and how that difference should be quantified.

Issue (i): Whether only the profit element, and at what rate, was taxable on identified unaccounted sales, including cash sales for assessment year 2021-22.

Analysis: The bank accounts, loose papers and digital material established unrecorded sales from the mobile-accessories business. However, identified sale proceeds constituted turnover and could not be equated with taxable real income or assessed in full as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The statutory presumptions concerning seized material did not convert gross sale receipts into net income. As the activity necessarily involved purchases and trading expenditure, and the disclosed business results showed varying net-profit rates, estimation of business profits at 5% of the respective identified turnover was appropriate. Any sale shown from the existing record to have been counted twice must be excluded.

Conclusion: Additions on the identified unaccounted sales shall be restricted to 5% of the respective turnover, after excluding established duplication; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash salary payments and cash payments to suppliers could be separately added after estimation of profit from the same unrecorded trading activity.

Analysis: The seized salary workings and supplier-payment material related to employees and procurement for the same mobile-accessories trading activity whose profit was estimated. The 5% profit estimate allowed for the cost of goods and associated business expenditure. No distinct source of cash or expenditure outside that trading activity was established so as to warrant separate additions under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A further addition for such salaries or purchases would result in double addition of the same trading outgo.

Conclusion: The deletions of the separate additions for cash salaries and payments to suppliers are sustained; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether alleged cash or on-money payments for Nathani Heights flats and Platinum Mall shops were proved as investments of the assessee.

Analysis: The seized sheets and workbook corroborated bookings and recorded cheque payments, but did not reliably establish that the assessee made the disputed cash payments. There were discrepancies in the alleged cash figures, no dated cash-payment trail, receipt, confirmation from the alleged recipient, or other independent proof of payment by the assessee. The cancellation and subsequent resale of the bookings were material circumstances. Entries concerning several purchasers in a common workbook could not, without individual evidence, be attributed to the assessee. The presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not dispense with the evidentiary burden of identifying the payer, the payment, and the relevant year.

Conclusion: The alleged cash-investment additions for the flats and shops are deleted; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether cash found at the business premises was unexplained money taxable in the assessee's hands.

Analysis: The major portion of the cash found was accounted for in the records of the company operating from the premises and had been accepted in that company's assessment. The balance was explained through cash sales and realisations of the trading concern. A statement that the cash belonged to the employee's boss did not establish unexplained money in the assessee's individual hands, particularly when the related trading receipts had already been dealt with.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition for cash found is sustained; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the entire physical stock, rather than the unrecorded valuation difference, could be added and how that difference should be quantified.

Analysis: The aggregate book stock of the assessee's concern and the company could not be treated afresh as unexplained investment. Only the difference of Rs. 17,74,324 between physical-stock valuation and book-stock value remained for consideration. Since the physical valuation was based on approximate item-wise rates and involved unaccounted trading activity, only 5% of that difference was liable to be added. Any overlap with profit already estimated on unaccounted sales must be eliminated.

Conclusion: The stock addition is restricted to Rs. 88,716, subject to exclusion of any established duplication; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Taxable income is to be recomputed by applying the 5% profit estimate to identified unaccounted turnover, removing unsupported investment and separate-expense additions, and confining the stock adjustment to the limited valuation difference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized material establishes unrecorded trading turnover but does not prove a separate investment, taxation is confined to a reasonable profit estimate, and purchases or expenses of that same trade cannot be added again separately.

Issues: (i) Whether bail granted to one accused in a money-laundering investigation was liable to be set aside; (ii) Whether the other accused was entitled to bail while the investigation remained incomplete.

Issue (i): Whether bail granted to one accused in a money-laundering investigation was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The quashing of a predicate FIR on the basis of a compromise did not, by itself, obliterate the existence of proceeds of crime for proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The serious allegations, the substantial scale of the alleged laundering, and the need for further investigation warranted application of the rigour under Section 45.

Conclusion: The grant of bail was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the other accused was entitled to bail while the investigation remained incomplete.

Analysis: The investigation remained incomplete and the nature and seriousness of the allegations did not warrant bail. The rigour under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied.

Conclusion: Bail was refused.

Final Conclusion: The statutory threshold governing bail in money-laundering proceedings applied to both accused during the continuing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Quashing of a predicate FIR on compromise does not, by itself, extinguish proceeds of crime for adjudicating bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: (i) Whether repair, pre-delivery inspection and warranty services rendered for a sister concern were classifiable as Business Auxiliary Service; (ii) Whether the service-tax demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether repair, pre-delivery inspection and warranty services rendered for a sister concern were classifiable as Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis: For the same period and substantially identical activities, an earlier adjudication had found that the services did not merit classification as Business Auxiliary Service. Revenue had not challenged that adjudication. The impugned demand under that taxable category was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The activities were not liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the service-tax demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had sought departmental clarification regarding its tax liability and had surrendered its registration on departmental advice. The earlier adjudication found that the Department was aware of the relevant facts; consequently, suppression with intent to evade tax could not be alleged.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand under the impugned classification, together with consequential interest and penalties, could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation cannot be invoked where the Department possessed the material facts and the assessee acted on departmental advice concerning its tax liability.

Issues: Whether the assessment order confirming GST demand could be set aside for fresh adjudication despite the assessee's failure to reply to the show-cause notice, non-participation in hearing opportunities, and delayed invocation of writ jurisdiction instead of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The assessment had been passed after the assessee failed to respond to the show-cause notice and did not avail the personal-hearing opportunities. Although the statutory appellate route under Section 107 was ordinarily available and the writ petition was filed after the prescribed period, discretionary relief was granted to enable a response to the notice and a merits determination, upon a cash pre-deposit of 50% of the disputed tax.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the matter was restored for a fresh determination on merits upon compliance with the stipulated pre-deposit and filing of a reply to the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration could be made retrospectively where the show cause notice did not disclose any proposed retrospective cancellation.

Analysis: A cancellation order cannot impose retrospective operation where the show cause notice neither indicates such proposed action nor affords notice of that basis. The notice alleged only non-filing of returns for a continuous period; it did not communicate an intention to cancel the registration retrospectively. The absence of any allegation of wrongdoing and the filing of pending returns supported limiting the cancellation to prospective operation.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation of the GST registration was set aside; cancellation shall operate prospectively.

Issues: (i) Whether the technical know-how fee received from an associated enterprise could be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated with the linked premix-purchase transaction; (ii) Whether provision for performance incentives paid to directors was disallowable as excessive or unreasonable under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the technical know-how fee received from an associated enterprise could be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated with the linked premix-purchase transaction.

Analysis: Rule 10A(d) and Rule 10B permit aggregation of closely linked transactions for determining the arm's length price. The technical know-how fee was netted against the cost of premix purchased from the associated enterprise, thereby reducing the net purchase cost. As the invoice prices of the premix had been accepted under the comparable uncontrolled price method, the fee reducing that cost was also at arm's length.

Conclusion: The technical know-how fee could not be separately benchmarked; the transfer-pricing adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether provision for performance incentives paid to directors was disallowable as excessive or unreasonable under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) requires a finding that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable with reference to the fair market value of services, legitimate business needs, or benefit derived. No finding, supporting material, or comparable evidence established that the directors' performance incentive was excessive or unreasonable.

Conclusion: The performance-incentive provision was not disallowable under Section 40A(2)(b); the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment for technical know-how fees and the disallowance of directors' performance incentives were deleted.

Issues: Whether refractory materials imported for re-lining blast furnaces qualify as capital goods eligible for zero-duty import under the EPCG Scheme.

Analysis: Notification No. 102/2009-Customs dated 11.09.2009 permits zero-duty import of capital goods under the EPCG Scheme. Refractories used for furnace re-lining are accessories required indirectly for manufacture of finished goods and fall within the principal, exhaustive part of the definition of capital goods. The inclusive reference to refractories for initial lining enlarges, rather than restricts, that definition and does not exclude replacement refractories used for re-lining or maintenance.

Conclusion: Refractories imported for re-lining furnaces qualify as capital goods and are entitled to the EPCG zero-duty benefit; the differential duty, interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine are unsustainable.

Issues: Whether encashment of bank guarantees for shortfall in minimum guaranteed cargo tonnage constitutes consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act and is taxable as a declared service.

Analysis: Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies only where there is an agreement to tolerate an act or situation for specified consideration. Amounts recovered upon encashment of bank guarantees for failure to meet the committed cargo tonnage were penal charges intended to secure contractual performance and deter default. They had no nexus with any taxable service provided or agreed to be provided and were not consideration for tolerating non-performance.

Conclusion: Encashment of bank guarantees for minimum guaranteed tonnage shortfall is not taxable as a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; the service-tax demand, interest and penalty are unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether clearance of PPCP and SAN inputs as such to moulders, following reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 3(5) and payment of VAT/CST, constituted trading or exempted service attracting liability under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on allegations of suppression where the removals and credit reversal were known to departmental officials.

Issue (i): Whether clearance of PPCP and SAN inputs as such to moulders, following reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 3(5) and payment of VAT/CST, constituted trading or exempted service attracting liability under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The inputs were cleared to moulders for conversion into battery components after reversal of the CENVAT credit availed on them under Rule 3(5), with VAT/CST paid on the transaction. Consistent with coordinate decisions on identical transactions involving the assessee, such removal of inputs as such was not a trading activity or exempted service. Consequently, Rule 6(3)(i) could not be invoked to demand 5%/6% of the value of the clearances.

Conclusion: The clearances did not constitute trading or exempted service, and the 5%/6% amount under Rule 6(3)(i) was not payable by the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on allegations of suppression where the removals and credit reversal were known to departmental officials.

Analysis: The availment of credit and clearance of inputs as such to moulders were within the knowledge of the Range and Divisional officials. This negated suppression with intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand, interest and penalty founded on treating the input clearances as trading activity, including the extended-period demand, lacked legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where credit availed on inputs is reversed under Rule 3(5) upon their removal as such, the clearance cannot simultaneously be treated as trading or exempted service for attracting liability under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Issues: (i) Whether the discount on employee stock options granted to employees was deductible as business expenditure; (ii) Whether the arm's length price of royalty receipts required fresh determination by considering internal CUP/internal benchmarking and comparable agreements; (iii) Whether the trading-segment arm's length price required exclusion of unsuitable comparables and use of gross margin as the profit level indicator under the other method; (iv) Whether the final comparable set for IT support services required inclusions, exclusions, and verification; (v) Whether the final comparable set for digital marketing support services required inclusions, exclusions, and verification.

Issue (i): Whether the discount on employee stock options granted to employees was deductible as business expenditure.

Analysis: Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business and does not require a cash outflow. The discount on stock options represents the cost of securing employees' services during the vesting period. The liability is ascertained when the options vest; subsequent exercise merely quantifies the benefit. The discount is consequently revenue expenditure and not a capital outlay or a contingent liability. Pending challenges by the Revenue to favourable High Court decisions, without a stay or contrary Supreme Court ruling, did not justify sustaining the disallowance.

Conclusion: The ESOP discount is allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37(1), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the arm's length price of royalty receipts required fresh determination by considering internal CUP/internal benchmarking and comparable agreements.

Analysis: Sections 92A(1) and 92A(2) require a conjunctive assessment of associated-enterprise status. Reliable internal uncontrolled transactions and evidence of comparable transactions with non-associated enterprises in the same market ordinarily warrant examination before resorting to external comparables. The evidence concerning internal benchmarking, the comparability of rejected royalty agreements, and the consistency of the external comparable set had not been adequately evaluated.

Conclusion: The royalty arm's length price determination is remitted for fresh examination of internal CUP/internal benchmarking and the comparable agreements, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the trading-segment arm's length price required exclusion of unsuitable comparables and use of gross margin as the profit level indicator under the other method.

Analysis: Entities engaged in manufacturing, tailoring, or substantially different apparel businesses without reliable segmental data were functionally unsuitable comparables for trading in baby and children's products. A comparable affected by an amalgamation during the relevant year was also unsuitable because of the extraordinary event. Rule 10AB permits the other method, including comparison of gross margins based on relevant purchase costs and sales where capacity-utilisation data of comparables is unavailable.

Conclusion: The identified unsuitable comparables are to be excluded and the trading-segment arm's length price is remitted for determining the gross-margin profit level indicator under the other method, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the final comparable set for IT support services required inclusions, exclusions, and verification.

Analysis: Comparable selection must be governed by functional, asset, and risk similarity rather than merely by database search results or differing industry codes. Entities providing software-development, routine IT-enabled, or infrastructure-management services were directed to be included where functionally comparable. One proposed comparable requires verification of compliance with the applicable filters. Entities primarily engaged in online gaming and advertising, GIS/CAD solutions, cloud telephony, or diversified infrastructure-management and quality-assurance services were functionally dissimilar.

Conclusion: The IT-support-services comparable set is to be recomputed after the directed inclusions, exclusions, and verification, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the final comparable set for digital marketing support services required inclusions, exclusions, and verification.

Analysis: Public-relations, advertising, market-research, and marketing-consultancy service providers were functionally relevant to digital marketing support where they satisfied the prescribed filters. Proposed comparables requiring factual verification were remitted for that purpose. Engineering, construction, infrastructure, foreign-trade, financial, hydropower, apparel-sourcing, and other technical consultancy entities were functionally dissimilar; entities lacking reliable segmental information or owning material intangibles were also unsuitable. Under the third proviso to Rule 10CA(2), a company found non-comparable for the relevant financial year could not be retained for the adjoining years used in the multi-year analysis.

Conclusion: The digital-marketing-support-services comparable set is to be recomputed after the directed inclusions, exclusions, and verification, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment requires recomputation after allowing the ESOP deduction and redetermining the transfer-pricing adjustments in accordance with the directed comparable-selection and benchmarking exercise.

Ratio Decidendi: A discount on employee stock options incurred to secure employee services is an ascertained revenue expenditure deductible under Section 37(1), notwithstanding the absence of a cash outflow.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 115JB applies to a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; (ii) Whether deduction for a provision for leave salary is allowable without actual payment under Section 43B(f); (iii) Whether UPS is entitled to depreciation at the computer-equipment rate.

Issue (i): Whether Section 115JB applies to a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

Analysis: Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was applied in light of the settled position that a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is not subject to the minimum alternate tax provisions.

Conclusion: Section 115JB does not apply to the banking company; decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction for a provision for leave salary is allowable without actual payment under Section 43B(f).

Analysis: Section 43B(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 validly regulates the timing of deduction for leave-encashment liability. Although such liability is a present accrued liability under the mercantile system, the statutory deduction is deferred until actual payment to the employee.

Conclusion: Deduction for the leave-salary provision is not allowable without actual payment; decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether UPS is entitled to depreciation at the computer-equipment rate.

Analysis: UPS was treated as an integral part of the computer system, there being no material establishing its independent functional use. It consequently attracts depreciation at the rate applicable to computer equipment.

Conclusion: UPS is eligible for depreciation at 60%; decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The banking company is outside the scope of minimum alternate tax under Section 115JB and is entitled to depreciation on UPS at 60%, but leave-encashment deduction is allowable only upon actual payment.

Issues: Whether the assessment order under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 was barred by statutory limitation.

Analysis: The satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2022-23. Under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the alleged escaped income exceeded Rs. 50 lakh, the applicable limitation extended to ten assessment years calculated backwards from that assessment year. The ten-year period extended only up to assessment year 2013-14; assessment year 2010-11 fell outside that period. The assessment was therefore a time-barred assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment order for assessment year 2010-11 was barred by statutory limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether offshore supply receipts under the first contract were taxable in India on the basis that a turnkey contract had been artificially split, the supplies were on CIF terms, and title passed only upon acceptance testing; (ii) Whether the Indian associate constituted a fixed place permanent establishment or dependent agent permanent establishment, creating a business connection and permitting attribution of offshore-supply profits; (iii) Whether Section 44BBB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be applied to compute income from the offshore supplies.

Issue (i): Whether offshore supply receipts under the first contract were taxable in India on the basis that a turnkey contract had been artificially split, the supplies were on CIF terms, and title passed only upon acceptance testing.

Analysis: Under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 7 of the India-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, only income attributable to operations carried out in India may be taxed in India. The contractual arrangement comprised distinct offshore supply, onshore supply and onshore service contracts, and was not an artificial splitting of a single indivisible contract. The offshore contract was confined to supplies from abroad; title and payment were outside India. CIF terms, continuing responsibility for care and custody, performance guarantees, and acceptance testing did not defer transfer of title or convert the offshore transaction into an Indian taxable operation.

Conclusion: The offshore supply receipts were not taxable in India, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian associate constituted a fixed place permanent establishment or dependent agent permanent establishment, creating a business connection and permitting attribution of offshore-supply profits.

Analysis: Article 5(1) and Article 5(5) of the India-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement require evidence of a fixed place at the assessee's disposal or of an agent acting dependently with requisite authority. The Indian associate conducted its own substantial and independent business. Its limited participation in customer meetings in relation to its own onshore scope did not establish an agency relationship or a permanent establishment. The survey material did not concern the assessee and did not establish the required nexus with the offshore supplies.

Conclusion: The Indian associate was neither a fixed place permanent establishment nor a dependent agent permanent establishment of the assessee, and no business connection or offshore-profit attribution arose, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 44BBB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be applied to compute income from the offshore supplies.

Analysis: Section 44BBB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerns income of a foreign company from specified turnkey power-project activities and does not extend to revenue solely from offshore supply where property in the goods transferred outside India. Its application also lacked the necessary foundation of a permanent establishment or taxable Indian operations.

Conclusion: Section 44BBB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was inapplicable to the offshore supply receipts, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The addition relating to offshore supply receipts was deleted, as the supplies had no taxable territorial nexus with India and could not be subjected to presumptive computation.

Issues: (i) Whether the 2025 Customs Brokers Licensing Examination was invalid because 65 of 150 questions concerned Allied Acts, allegedly departing from past examination patterns; (ii) Whether the alleged out-of-syllabus, ambiguous, or difficult questions and answer-key errors warranted judicial interference, licences, or additional examination attempts.

Issue (i): Whether the 2025 Customs Brokers Licensing Examination was invalid because 65 of 150 questions concerned Allied Acts, allegedly departing from past examination patterns.

Analysis: Regulation 6(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 expressly permits questions on Allied Acts and other laws relevant to EXIM trade and customs clearance. The Regulation prescribes no numerical ratio or ceiling for questions from major Acts and Allied Acts. A pattern followed in earlier examinations does not create a binding restriction upon the expert examining authority.

Conclusion: The proportion of questions from Allied Acts did not invalidate the examination. The issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged out-of-syllabus, ambiguous, or difficult questions and answer-key errors warranted judicial interference, licences, or additional examination attempts.

Analysis: Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is confined to patent illegality, mala fides, arbitrariness, or manifest error in the examination process. The expert-verified answer key carries a presumption of correctness, rebuttable only by a glaring error apparent without inferential reasoning. The objections disclosed, at most, questions of drafting precision, interpretation, or difficulty; they did not establish a facially demonstrable error in the answers or a departure from the notified syllabus. The framing, standard, and assessment of examination questions remain within the domain of subject experts.

Conclusion: No patent defect in the questions or answer key was established, and no entitlement to licences or additional attempts arose. The issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The examination and its expert evaluation remain undisturbed, as the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to reassess academic choices absent a patent and demonstrable defect.

Ratio Decidendi: In competitive examinations, an expert-approved question paper and answer key may be displaced in judicial review only upon a patent, facially demonstrable error or arbitrariness; an unstipulated departure from past question patterns or mere difficulty is insufficient.

Issues: (i) Whether customs duty collected upon release of the detained gold jewellery could be quashed despite an unchallenged adjudication order making release conditional upon payment of such duty; (ii) Whether the detention charges were liable to be quashed as unlawful.

Issue (i): Whether customs duty collected upon release of the detained gold jewellery could be quashed despite an unchallenged adjudication order making release conditional upon payment of such duty.

Analysis: The adjudication order expressly permitted release only upon payment of redemption fine, applicable customs duty and penalty. The assessee did not challenge that order or pursue remedies against its conditions. The earlier writ proceedings directed release in accordance with that order and did not adjudicate its validity. A belated challenge to the duty condition through the present writ amounted to an impermissible indirect challenge to the unchallenged order.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the customs-duty recovery could not be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention charges were liable to be quashed as unlawful.

Analysis: No material established that the warehouse detention charges were recovered contrary to the governing statutory provisions.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the detention charges were not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The conditions for release under the unchallenged adjudication order remain binding, and the recoveries made pursuant to those conditions stand enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: An unchallenged adjudication order cannot be collaterally assailed in writ proceedings merely because its conditions have been implemented.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for recovery of unpaid service tax; (ii) Whether interest and penalties for non-payment and concealment of collected service tax were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for recovery of unpaid service tax.

Analysis: The service tax collected from service recipients for the disputed period was neither deposited nor disclosed in the balance sheets, and the statutory returns for that period were not filed. Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 mandates the immediate deposit of collected service tax. The non-disclosure of collected tax and prolonged non-payment constituted suppression of facts and intentional evasion, attracting the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked and the service-tax demand was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest and penalties for non-payment and concealment of collected service tax were sustainable.

Analysis: Statutory interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 followed the confirmed tax demand. Failure to pay the collected tax attracted penalty under Section 77, while the established suppression of facts justified penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: Interest and penalties under Sections 75, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The liability arising from collection, non-deposit and concealment of service tax, together with consequential interest and penalties, remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Collection of service tax without its deposit or disclosure in statutory returns and accounts constitutes suppression of facts, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period and penal consequences.

Issues: Whether the first appellate order was sustainable where the adjournment request was not considered, the appellant was not afforded a hearing, and the order did not state reasons for its decision.

Analysis: Section 107(8) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the Appellate Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing. Under Section 107(11), it must make necessary inquiry and confirm, modify or annul the challenged order; Section 107(12) requires a written order stating the points for determination, the decision and reasons. Non-appearance may permit ex parte adjudication, but does not permit dismissal for want of prosecution without a merits determination. The cryptic statement that the grounds were perused and that no interference was required did not satisfy the requirement of a speaking order.

Conclusion: The Order-in-Appeal was unsustainable for breach of principles of natural justice and the statutory duty to issue a reasoned decision on merits; the penalty merits were left open for fresh determination after hearing.

Issues: Whether a commercial suit involving a corporate debtor in liquidation could continue without leave of the Tribunal, and whether it could be maintained against the remaining defendant after deletion of the corporate debtor.

Analysis: Section 279(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bar the continuation of proceedings by or against a company in liquidation without the Tribunal's leave. No such leave had been obtained, and the liquidator had not been served in the pending suit. The reliefs arose from the subcontractual arrangement and were sought jointly against the principal employer and the corporate debtor; the suit could not therefore be sustained by excluding the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: The suit could not proceed without leave of the Tribunal, and neither the suit nor the appellate challenge could be maintained by deleting the corporate debtor in liquidation.