E-way bill integrity requires timely statutory extensions; altered invoice data and dispatch details can evidence deliberate portal circumvention.
Rule 138(10) is treated as the exclusive mechanism for extending an E-Way Bill during exceptional transit delays. The transporter must update Part B and act within the stipulated period around expiry; a fresh or secondary E-Way Bill for the same invoice is not an alternative route. Section 129 proceedings apply the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, requiring reliable evidence of any claimed breakdown. Altering an invoice identifier to bypass duplicate-bill portal controls, especially with a changed dispatch location, is distinguished from a minor clerical error and treated as deliberate portal circumvention. (AI Summary)

Input tax credit reversal cannot rest on aggregate trade payables; only individually verified invoices unpaid beyond the prescribed period matter.
Input tax credit reversal linked to delayed supplier payment must rest on verification of specific purchase invoices remaining unpaid beyond 180 days and cannot be inferred from the aggregate trade-payables figure in a year-end balance sheet. Trade payables may comprise recent purchases within ordinary contractual credit periods. Any reversal demand should follow supplier- and invoice-level verification and be confined to cases of actual non-payment beyond the prescribed period. (AI Summary)

Udyam Registration Number recovery requires OTP validation through the registered mobile number or email, avoiding duplicate registration.
Udyam Registration Number recovery is available without fee through the official Udyam portal where the enterprise can receive a one-time password on the mobile number or email recorded during registration. The user selects the applicable Udyam Registration or older Udyog Aadhaar Memorandum option, validates the one-time password, and retrieves all registration numbers linked to the registered contact detail. Where access to that contact detail is unavailable, online recovery cannot be completed and support channels should be used. Loss of the number does not require a fresh or duplicate registration. (AI Summary)

GST document presumptions shift proof burdens, but loose papers and searches require corroboration and proper-officer authority.
Section 144 of the CGST Act creates a rebuttable presumption that documents tendered by the prosecution are genuine unless disproved. Loose sheets, slips, and diaries are not ordinarily books of account and require authentication and independent corroboration before supporting a tax addition. Entries in accounts alone cannot establish liability. Seized material must have a clear legal and factual nexus with an actual taxable supply. Investigation, search, and seizure must also be undertaken by a proper officer, since subsequent proceedings cannot rest on an invalid foundation. (AI Summary)

Outsourced hospital catering remains taxable because patient consumption cannot transform a standalone food supply into exempt healthcare.
GST exemption for in-patient diets depends on the supplier's own supply. A hospital may supply prescribed food as an ancillary part of exempt healthcare, but an independent caterer supplying food to the hospital makes a standalone taxable food supply. Ultimate consumption by in-patients and institutional communications do not alter classification. A mistaken reliance on a healthcare clarification does not by itself establish fraud-based non-payment; liability may proceed under the normal-demand route, with cum-tax valuation where tax was not separately collected. (AI Summary)

Tax litigation results show assessee-favouring patterns overall, while revenue proportions increase at higher appellate levels.
Reported litigation results are compared through assessee-favouring and revenue-favouring classifications, with assessee results fixed at one for revenue-to-assessee ratios. Revenue ratios remain below one in overall, Customs, Income Tax, Central Excise, and most GST comparisons, but exceed one at GST advance-ruling levels. Revenue's proportion generally rises from tribunals to High Courts and the Supreme Court. The trend is associated with differences in representation, resources, and the weight of counsel, including persuasiveness, professional standing, expertise, and credibility. (AI Summary)

GST search safeguards require valid authorisation, premise-specific inspection, documented seizure, and voluntary-not compelled-payment during investigations.
GST search and inspection under section 67 require authorisation by a Joint Commissioner or higher officer on specified grounds, with Form GST INS-01 identifying the applicable ground and premises. Search powers are premise-specific and do not extend to unlisted locations. Liability must be determined through adjudication under section 73 or section 74; on-site recovery is valid only where payment is genuinely voluntary and free from coercion. Seizures must be documented in a panchnama, and cash may be seized only upon a direct and demonstrable nexus with tax evasion. (AI Summary)

Statutory appeal limitation bars excess condonation while implemented registration restoration limits later departmental challenges in GST disputes.
Section 107 fixes a mandatory appellate timetable: an appeal must be filed within three months, with condonation on sufficient cause for no more than one additional month. The First Appellate Authority has no equitable or inherent jurisdiction beyond that ceiling, and Article 226 relief cannot enlarge its statutory power. Yet, where delayed appeals were implemented, registrations restored, compliance verified, and businesses resumed operations, a later departmental challenge may be incapable of effective relief because reversal could disturb supplies, invoicing, and recipients' input tax credit. Revocation and appeal remain distinct remedies, though an appeal remains subject to statutory limitation. (AI Summary)

Employment agreement disputes remain outside commercial jurisdiction despite remuneration, sales-linked claims, confidentiality clauses, or intellectual-property assignments.
Employment agreements requiring personal service are service disputes rather than commercial disputes, notwithstanding remuneration, high stakes, sales-related payments, confidentiality obligations, non-compete conditions, or intellectual-property assignments. Claims for salary, reimbursements, incentives, or commission arising from that relationship are outside Commercial Court jurisdiction. Where such a claim is filed before a Commercial Court, the plaint should be returned for presentation before the appropriate court rather than dismissed. (AI Summary)

Customs pre-deposit discretion should be restored to prevent rigid appeal barriers and reduce avoidable writ litigation.
Mandatory pre-deposit in customs appeals requires seven and a half per cent deposit for first appeals and certain Tribunal appeals, and ten per cent for Tribunal appeals against Commissioner (Appeals) orders, subject to an overall cap of rupees ten crores. The post-2014 regime removed appellate discretion to waive or reduce pre-deposit. Restoration of guided discretion is advocated by reference to prima facie merits, applicable precedents, relative case strength, financial capacity, business operations, and hardship affecting continuity and employment. (AI Summary)

Same subject matter in GST proceedings requires identity of liability, not shared registered persons, periods, suppliers, or ITC.
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars parallel action by Central and State GST authorities only where both proceedings concern the same liability, deficiency, or contravention requiring adjudication. Common registered person, financial year, supplier, input tax credit amount, or overlapping factual background does not establish identity. Changing provisions cannot avoid the bar if the underlying contravention is unchanged; however, a later fraud-based input tax credit proceeding involving invoices without actual supply may remain distinct from a general input tax credit eligibility or mismatch proceeding. (AI Summary)

Uncrystallized provident fund interest and damages remain contingent liabilities, allowing resolution plans to preserve CIRP certainty and timelines.
Provident-fund sums due to employees are excluded from the liquidation estate, but statutory interest and damages that were not determined before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process may be contingent liabilities. A resolution plan may provide for determined provident-fund dues without separately providing for uncrystallised interest and damages. The committee of creditors may reserve an amount for such contingencies, but is not required to do so merely because liability may later arise. Resolution applicants must be able to identify assumed liabilities within the fixed insolvency timeline. (AI Summary)

Advocate-client privilege protects confidential communications but permits GST inquiry into counsel's own alleged operational conduct under controlled digital safeguards.
Advocate-client privilege protects confidential professional communications, not every record held in an Advocate's office or digital device. A GST inquiry may distinguish privileged advice from the Advocate's own alleged commercial, financial or operational conduct where prima facie material connects that conduct to the investigation. Search powers may apply to an Advocate's cabin within authorised premises, while examination of seized electronic data requires cloning, supervised access, segregation of unrelated client files, and use confined to material relevant to the identified investigation. (AI Summary)

Rectification applications require written decisions, while suo motu correction remains discretionary and adverse amendments require prior hearing.
Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record permits income-tax authorities to amend their own orders and specified intimations, but matters considered and decided in appeal or revision are excluded. Suo motu rectification is discretionary. On an application by the assessee, deductor, collector, or, in relevant first-appeal matters, the Assessing Officer, the authority must issue a written order making the amendment or refusing the claim within six months. Adverse amendments require prior notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing; consequential refunds must be made and demand notices served where liability increases. (AI Summary)

Marginal relief under the new tax regime limits tax on qualifying income above the rebate threshold.
Marginal relief is proposed for resident individuals under the new tax regime whose total income exceeds Rs. 7 lakh. Tax payable must not exceed the income exceeding that threshold. Tax is computed before rebate, and the excess income over Rs. 7 lakh is determined. Where pre-rebate tax exceeds the excess income, the Section 87A rebate equals the difference; where the difference is negative, no rebate is allowed. (AI Summary)

Good-faith protection for tax officers depends on lawful adjudication, not procedural violations that undermine taxpayer safeguards.
Section 157 of the CGST Act limits suits, prosecutions and other legal proceedings against designated Tribunal personnel and tax officers to acts done or intended in good faith under the Act or rules. Good faith is not automatic immunity where adjudication departs from procedural safeguards, including personal hearings, the confines of show cause notices, correct demand provisions, proportionate penalties, statutory payment opportunities and consideration of taxpayer replies. Appellate scrutiny may test whether such orders comply with statutory requirements and procedural fairness. (AI Summary)

Digital compliance strengthens board governance through automated oversight, cybersecurity, privacy controls, and responsible artificial intelligence supervision.
Digital compliance integrates technology into corporate and board functions to support observance of applicable laws, internal policies, and governance standards. It includes electronic records, digital board meetings, automated monitoring, electronic filings, digital signatures, secure document management, and data protection. Board oversight covers cybersecurity, personal data protection, digital risk, artificial intelligence governance, fraud prevention, business continuity, and digitally supported ESG disclosures. Company secretaries support digital governance through regulatory advice, timely compliance, electronic records, digital due diligence, and ethical governance. (AI Summary)

Reasoned GST adjudication requires genuine consideration of taxpayer replies and evidence; unexplained rejection breaches natural justice despite appellate remedies.
GST adjudication must result in a reasoned or speaking order demonstrating genuine consideration of the taxpayer's reply, submissions, and supporting material. An order that merely records receipt of a reply but rejects it without addressing the contentions or documents relied upon lacks the reasons necessary to disclose application of mind. Availability of an alternative statutory appeal does not preclude writ jurisdiction where principles of natural justice are breached by a non-speaking order. (AI Summary)

Merchant discount rate on UPI payments may attract GST on payment-processing services, subject to contractual and statutory conditions.
MDR on specified UPI transactions, if introduced, would ordinarily be a payment-processing charge collected from or deducted from the merchant's settlement, without necessarily creating a separate customer charge. GST, where applicable, would generally apply to the separate payment-processing or acquiring service and not to the amount transferred through UPI. The ultimate burden may be absorbed, renegotiated or reflected in prices. Eligible registered persons may claim input tax credit on GST charged on the service if statutory conditions are met, while composition taxpayers, unregistered persons and persons making exempt supplies may face unrecoverable costs. (AI Summary)

GST on UPI merchant discount charges applies to payment-processing services, while eligible businesses may claim input tax credit.
MDR on specified P2M UPI payments is treated as consideration for a separate payment-processing service. GST at 18% applies to the MDR actually charged, rather than directly to the underlying supply or the GST in the customer invoice, although MDR may be calculated on the gross payment. A registered merchant making taxable supplies may claim input tax credit on GST paid on MDR where the service is used for business and normal eligibility, documentation and credit restrictions are satisfied; exempt, composition and unregistered merchants may bear that GST as cost. (AI Summary)