Exceeding the aggregate-turnover ceiling causes composition-scheme eligibility to lapse automatically from the breach date. Regular-rate tax applies only to post-lapse supplies, with adjustment of composition tax already paid. Because composition taxpayers cannot collect tax separately, invoice values are treated as tax-inclusive where no additional tax was recovered. Differential tax must therefore be recomputed using the Rule 35 cum-tax formula, even if the benefit was not claimed earlier. Transitional input tax credit remains conditional, time-bound and dependent on prescribed compliance.

Pending proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, an FIR, investigation, inquiry, or property attachment do not by themselves establish resolution applicant ineligibility under Section 29A. Conviction-based disqualification requires fulfilment of the applicable statutory condition. Attachment may nevertheless affect assessment of the applicant's credibility, financial capacity, and ability to implement the resolution plan. The Committee of Creditors must consider these risks while exercising commercial wisdom, subject to statutory requirements governing plan approval and limited judicial review.

GST appellate pre-deposit for a penalty-only demand depends on the regime applicable when adjudicatory proceedings commenced. Where the show-cause notice predates an amendment introducing a percentage-based deposit, that condition does not govern the covered appeal; this is inapplicability rather than discretionary waiver. The position does not remove payment of admitted liability or determine other appellate pre-deposit provisions. Service, limitation, officer competence and merits remain separate questions requiring examination under the applicable statutory framework and records.

Input tax credit compliance requires verification of actual invoice dates, payment records and supporting evidence rather than use of a year-end aggregate trade-payables balance as a proxy for delayed payment. A closing trade-payables balance, without matching it to invoice-level payment chronology, does not establish non-payment beyond the prescribed period. Assessments must address taxpayer replies and relevant documents and state reasons where explanations are not accepted.

Company Court jurisdiction in winding-up extends under Sections 446(2) and 456 of the Companies Act, 1956, to custody of property appearing to belong to the company and determination of its title. Five paintings were treated as liquidation assets on a preponderance of probabilities, supported by corporate records, seizure material, police affidavits and gallery confirmation. A rival claimant's failure to produce title evidence or testify justified an adverse inference; family consent terms concerning possession and enjoyment did not bind the company or establish competing title. The paintings may be sold through an expert-assisted art-auction process to maximise value, while claims over remaining paintings remain separately determinable.

Prospective export-policy restrictions apply to goods not exported by the effective date; procurement, payment, port storage, and unshipped stock do not create an accrued export right. Earlier free-export classifications or State export tenders do not establish legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel where public-interest resource, security, and planning concerns support change. An Irrevocable Commercial Letter of Credit may validly define transitional eligibility because it is objectively verifiable. Export licensing may regulate rather than prohibit trade, but applications cannot remain frozen pending review: they require timely, individual, reasoned consideration after a hearing, accounting for commercial hardship and national-security factors.

Physical service of show-cause notices is required where departmental adjudication begins after cancellation of a taxpayer's registration, if the applicable circular so prescribes. Uploading notices only to the common portal after cancellation does not effectively notify the taxpayer and cannot support ex parte adjudication or penalty orders. The taxpayer must receive an opportunity to reply, request documents or cross-examination, and adequate advance notice of the personal hearing. The ex parte orders are set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication with those procedural safeguards.

Delayed filing of a GST return after payment of applicable late fees raised the validity of a residuary penalty under section 125 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act. The aggregate penalty exceeded the Act's statutory maximum. The show-cause notice and penalty order imposing that penalty were quashed and set aside, establishing that delayed return filing cannot attract a residuary penalty beyond the prescribed statutory limit.

Section 75(7) confines an adjudicating authority to the tax demand set out in the show-cause notice. Where the notice proposes tax alone and contains no proposal for interest or penalty, subsequent confirmation of interest or penalty exceeds the notice's scope and constitutes a jurisdictional error. Adjudication must therefore remain within the demand proposed in the notice.

Delay in filing a statutory GST appeal was condoned despite its rejection as time-barred for exceeding the ordinarily condonable period. The appellant attributed the delay to the serious illness and subsequent death of the proprietor's husband, for whom she was the sole caregiver. The High Court set aside the appellate limitation order and restored the appeal for a fresh decision on merits, subject to costs.

Section 75(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prohibits confirmation of a tax demand on grounds different from those specified in the show-cause notice. Where DRC-01 proposed tax at one rate on a specified turnover, but the adjudication order and DRC-07 confirmed tax at another rate on a different turnover without confirming the original proposal, the demand rested on an unnotified ground. Such confirmation violates Section 75(7) and is invalid.

General penalty under the CGST and UPGST Acts was unsustainable where the return had been furnished, tax liability discharged and applicable late fee paid. The penalty also exceeded the maximum limit prescribed under the UPGST Act. The show-cause notice and penalty order were set aside on the grounds of completed compliance and breach of the statutory penalty ceiling.

Ex parte assessment orders under Section 73 of the GST Act breach principles of natural justice where the authority neither decides the matter on the scheduled hearing date nor communicates a subsequent hearing date. Failure to provide notice of the rescheduled hearing denies the taxpayer a fair opportunity of personal hearing. Such an assessment order is invalid and requires reconsideration through a fresh hearing followed by a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Effective legal representation in a criminal conviction appeal requires direct notice to an unrepresented appellant or legal assistance before a merits determination, reflecting Section 386 CrPC and Article 21 fair-hearing requirements. Cross-examination remains essential where recalled documentary evidence is relied upon, particularly if the record does not reliably show an opportunity to challenge it. In cheque dishonour proceedings, a legally enforceable debt must be supported by reliable commercial records and authenticated vouchers. Statutory presumptions may be rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities through a plausible defence and deficiencies in the claimant's evidence. Parallel claims for the same liability against different persons may undermine the alleged transaction and indicate abuse of process.

Plaint amendments may be permitted when required to determine the real controversy, but cannot introduce an entirely new cause of action or alter the suit's nature. Compensation fixed in cheque-dishonour criminal proceedings is recoverable through the statutory enforcement mechanism under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, rather than through a pending civil recovery suit. Claims for criminal-litigation expenses arise from a cause of action distinct from the civil claim and cannot be added by such amendment.

Failed auction transactions in which the purchaser receives neither goods nor permission to lift them require refund of all sums collected pursuant to the auction demand, including amounts remitted as income tax and VAT. Inter-departmental tax remittances do not justify withholding; the State may instead seek lawful reimbursement or adjustment from the tax departments. Restitution prevents unjust enrichment where no taxable event or supply occurs. Wrongful retention of refundable deposits attracts compensatory interest despite the absence of a contractual or express statutory interest provision, with interest payable at 8% annually for the specified periods on unpaid sums.

Section 15(5)(e) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was declared ultra vires the Constitution of India under an earlier binding Division Bench determination. Applying that determination to the petitioners' challenge, composition-scheme dealers covered by the provision were permitted to opt out of the composition scheme. The key legal point is that invalidity of the statutory provision removed the basis for requiring those dealers to remain within that scheme.

Under IPR 2007, Negative List classification of a cement unit depends on its actual industrial activity and value addition, not grinding or mixing viewed in isolation; an earlier classification determination does not itself establish VAT reimbursement where sanction and quantification remain outstanding. Clause 18.4(iv) covers existing units undertaking expansion, modernisation or diversification. Retrospective deletion of the new-unit condition from relevant Annexure entries prevents denial solely because an original unit pre-dated the policy. Downstream Thrust Sector eligibility must be assessed against the remaining criteria, including actual operations and expansion records, with any admissible reimbursement for increased commercial production determined only after that assessment.

Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 retrospectively amended Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the relevant period and removed the requirement to maintain separate accounts. Accordingly, issues framed under the unamended Rule 6 and a remand for verification no longer required resolution. CENVAT credit remained available where inputs were bifurcated as attributable to exempted goods.

Legal services provided by individual advocates and partnership firms of advocates were subject to a nil rate and exemption from service tax under Notifications No. 25/2012-ST and No. 30/2012-ST. Service-tax demands on those exempt legal services conflicted with the binding notifications and lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the levy and related actions concerning such services were unsustainable.