SEZ-related notification benefits and revised S.T.-3 returns must be examined where they may affect a service-tax demand. The claimed benefits had apparently not been considered, and verification was required to establish whether revised returns supporting the claim were filed. The impugned demand order was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after that examination.

Central Government designates the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, Mumbai, Maharashtra, as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The authorised scope comprises computer-media forensics and mobile-device forensics.

Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 designates the Cyber Forensic Division of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, Rajasthan, as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India. Its authorised scope covers Computer (Media) Forensics, excluding floppy disks, and Mobile Devices Forensics. Examination authority is confined to those specified electronic-evidence categories.

Cyber Forensic Laboratory, Navy Cyber Group, Naval Headquarters, is notified as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its authorised scope covers computer media forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile device forensics. The earlier 2024 Gazette designation is rescinded.

Interest awarded for delayed payment or withholding of compulsory-acquisition compensation under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is distinct from the compensation or consideration for acquiring land and is treated as a taxable revenue receipt. Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 excludes agricultural land from tax deduction at source on acquisition compensation, but that exclusion does not extend to such interest. Tax may therefore be deducted at source from interest awarded in relation to compulsorily acquired agricultural land.

Designation of the Special Instruments Wing, Border Security Force, Central Drone Forensic Lab as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence is made under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The designation applies within India, with its authorised scope limited to drone forensics.

National Forensic Science University, Goa, is designated as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, with effect throughout India. Its authorised scope is confined to Computer (Media) Forensics and Mobile Devices Forensics. The designation identifies two distinct forensic domains for electronic-evidence examination.

Temporary supplementary filing for console cargo at Kolkata Customs is permitted from 9 October 2026 until midnight on 10 October 2026 where the requisite CSN has not been filed and cargo details must be added. The permission is confined to the stated purpose and period; it does not reinstate general supplementary filing for import cargo. Where a CSN/SAM has already been successfully filed, an amendment must follow the prescribed SCMTR amendment procedure.

Money-laundering accused consciously not arrested during investigation and remanded only after filing of the prosecution complaint and cognizance need not satisfy the twin bail conditions where custodial interrogation is not required. Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require arrest or judicial custody merely upon filing of a complaint; it requires production before the court. The court may instead secure appearance through bonds under Section 88. Continued remand, delayed commencement of trial, and no near prospect of conclusion supported release on bail.

Applications for confidentiality must identify the applicant, known participants, the alleged arrangement and default, associated persons, related proceedings, and supporting evidence. They must include any material information directed by the Board. The applicant or authorised representative must verify on oath that the information is true, no material facts are suppressed, and relevant later information will be promptly disclosed. Applications must be signed, sealed where the applicant is a body corporate, and accompanied by the prescribed undertaking and waiver.

Settlement notices must identify prima facie securities-law violations, relevant legal and penalty provisions, and brief findings, without creating any right to settlement or limiting modification of proceedings. A standard settlement application may be filed within sixty days, without assurance of settlement. Violation-based fast-track settlement requires a timely application, remittance of the specified settlement amount, and compliance with remedial and regulatory terms; failure or withdrawal may lead to initiation of proceedings and later-stage settlement application.

Settlement applicants must provide complete identity, proceeding, charge and financial-disclosure particulars, including investor loss, profit made, loss avoided and proposed settlement terms. The application must include undertakings, waivers, authority documentation and supporting notices. Applicants accept jurisdiction, limitation-time exclusion during settlement, payment obligations, enforcement for breach, and specified waivers of procedures and challenges, while third-party remedies remain unaffected. The settlement amount is calculated from the base amount and applicable stage, regulatory action, gravity, aggravating and mitigating factors, with legal costs and applicable disgorgement added to the total payable amount.

Regulation 45 repeals the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 while preserving continuity for specified prior actions and references. Summary-settlement notices under the 2018 framework are treated as issued and governed under the 2026 regulations. Earlier settlement orders, and the Internal Committee and High Powered Advisory Committee constituted under the 2018 regulations, are deemed made or constituted under the current framework. References to the 2018 regulations in other regulations are read as references to the 2026 regulations.

Regulation 44 governs pending settlement applications following repeal of the earlier settlement framework. Applications with settlement terms already approved by the Panel of Whole Time Member continue under those terms. Where recommendations exist but lack Panel approval, applicants may choose fresh processing under the current framework or processing under the earlier framework using the recommended settlement amount. Applications without recommendations are processed under the current framework after a fresh Internal Committee meeting.

Settlement orders and rejections of settlement applications remain valid despite procedural defects, defects in determining settlement terms, or vacancies or constitutional defects in Chapter V committees. The Board may revoke a settlement order if an applicant does not pay a difference arising from a discrepancy in arriving at the settlement term; that difference includes profits gained or losses avoided from the underlying violations.

Regulation 42 permits the Panel of Whole Time Member to relax deadlines where the delay is no more than thirty days old, arose from factors beyond the applicant's control, and relaxation furthers the regulatory objective. The power excludes specified time limits. Extensions for payment of settlement amounts after a demand notice deadline may not exceed thirty days and may carry a one percent increase in the settlement amount.

The Board may address difficulties in interpreting, applying or implementing the Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings Regulations by issuing clarifications and prescribing procedures through circulars or guidelines.

Information and discussions in settlement proceedings are treated as fiduciary and may not be publicly released where disclosure prejudices the Board or applicant. Following rejection or withdrawal of an application, neither side may rely on or introduce settlement proposals, information, or representations as evidence before a court or Tribunal. The restriction does not apply on revocation of a settlement order. Information distinctly relating to a fact discovered through an application may be proved, whether or not it amounts to an admission.

Revocation of a settlement order may occur where an applicant breaches any settlement term, fails to make full and true disclosure, or violates undertakings or waivers. The Board may restore or initiate the proceeding for which settlement was granted. Prior hearing before the Board is mandatory before revocation. Upon revocation, amounts paid under the settlement framework are not refundable.

Settlement orders do not serve as evidence in proceedings concerning defaults outside their scope and do not affect third-party rights. In co-noticee proceedings, observations concerning a settling applicant may be made only where necessary to establish another person's act, and remain subject to the settlement order unless revoked. Observations concerning another person are not independently admissible against that person. Other co-noticees cannot invoke the settlement order to claim exoneration or that proceedings against them are infructuous.