Reasonable apprehension of arrest for anticipatory bail - Custodial interrogation in anticipatory bail Anticipatory bail following summons under the CGST Act - Reasonable apprehension of arrest - Maintainability of anticipatory bail where the applicant had been summoned under the CGST Act but no arrest order had been passed - HELD THAT: - Mere issuance of summons neither establishes arrest nor, by itself, creates an accused status. However, absence of a subsisting arrest order is not an absol... ... ...

Service of GST adjudication order and statutory appeal Non-receipt of adjudication order - Opportunity to file statutory GST appeal - Entitlement to have the statutory GST appeal entertained where the adjudication order was not received and the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time - HELD THAT: - The Court held that, since the petitioner had been unable to receive the adjudication order and consequently could not file an appeal within the prescribed period, an opportunity to pu... ... ...

Alternative statutory remedy under GST law - Writ jurisdiction where statutory GST appeal is available Maintainability of the writ petition challenging a consolidated GST show-cause notice for Financial Years 2017-18 and 2022-23 on grounds of limitation, jurisdiction and impermissible clubbing - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the objections concerning limitation, jurisdiction and the permissibility of clubbing different financial years involved disputed questions of fact and law which could... ... ...

Mechanical rejection of condonation application - Opportunity of personal hearing in GST adjudication - Reasoned disposal of condonation application Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a reply to a GST show-cause notice - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority had not dealt with the case advanced for condonation and had mechanically rejected the application without recording reasons. The show-cause process was also required to afford ... ... ...

Cancellation of GST registration - non-consideration of reply to show-cause notice Validity of cancellation of GST registration where the authority recorded that no reply had been filed despite the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice being on record - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the cancellation proceedings, including the show-cause notice and cancellation order, had been undertaken mechanically, without proper application of mind and without considering the reply filed by t... ... ...

Reasoned and speaking GST adjudication order - Non-application of mind in adjudication Validity of the GST adjudication order where the taxpayer's detailed reply was not properly considered and the order lacked reasons - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the impugned adjudication order was neither reasoned nor speaking and suffered from perversity and non-application of mind. A fresh decision was required after consideration of the taxpayer's reply and after affording an adequate oppo... ... ...

Service of show cause notice through GST portal - Principles of natural justice Validity of ex parte GST adjudication where the show cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation - HELD THAT: - The Court found that, in the absence of separate intimation of a notice uploaded under the specified portal tab, the petitioner was unable to submit a reply. This constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. [Paras 5, 6]... ... ...

Principles of natural justice - Service of GST show cause notice through portal - Validity of GST adjudication founded on a show cause notice uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation HELD THAT: - The Court found that, since the show cause notice had only been uploaded under the specified portal tab and no separate intimation had been given, the petitioner was unable to reply to it. This constituted a violation of the principles of natural ... ... ...

Regular bail in alleged fraudulent input tax credit availment HELD THAT: - The Court considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had one prior criminal antecedent, and the alleged non-bailable offences were compoundable. Without expressing any view on the merits, these circumstances were held sufficient for grant of bail. [Paras 6] Regular bail was granted subject to execution of bond and compliance with conditions protecting the fairness and expeditious disposal of the ... ... ...

Alternative remedy under the CGST Act - Exceptions to writ jurisdiction - Maintainability of writ petitions challenging Orders-in-Original despite the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Special Leave Petitions dismissed; no grounds were found to interfere with the impugned High Court judgment(s) and order(s) [2026 (8) TMI 840 - DELHI HIGH COURT]... ... ...

Writ petition challenging the GST adjudication order - Alternative statutory remedy - Exercise of writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances - Violation of principles of natural justice - Writ jurisdiction against GST adjudication HELD THAT:- Special Leave Petition dismissed, no grounds having been found to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court [2026 (8) TMI 631 - DELHI HIGH COURT]... ... ...

Uploading a GST show cause notice solely under the portal's "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, denied the taxpayer an effective opportunity to reply and breached the principles of natural justice. As the statutory appeal was dismissed solely on limitation without consideration on merits, the show cause notice, adjudication order and appellate order were quashed. Fresh proceedings were directed through a fresh show cause notice, an opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned adjudication.

Input Tax Credit reconciliation through GSTR-2A/2B, GSTR-3B and the annual return may provide prima facie evidence of available credit. A tax demand alleging excess utilisation of Input Tax Credit requires reconsideration where those material records were not duly examined, with an opportunity to establish the credit claimed. Verification of asserted recovery of part of the demand is also required before releasing a bank attachment. The tax demand was set aside for fresh consideration, and the attachment was to be lifted subject to verification of recovery.

Statutory appellate jurisdiction does not permit the First Appellate Authority to condone delay beyond the enactment's prescribed outer limit; equitable relief available in writ jurisdiction cannot enlarge that power. Condonation beyond that limit renders consequential appellate orders legally unsustainable. Where the Department has implemented those orders by restoring cancelled registrations, altering the registrants' legal and commercial position and permitting business continuation, it cannot seek annulment without addressing the consequences of restoration. The absence of effective, workable relief makes the Department's challenge infructuous and not maintainable.

Customs exemption amendments cannot be applied to imported second-hand specialised equipment handed to the first carrier before the amendment took effect, where multimodal transport is recognised under the Customs Act. A request for provisional release must therefore be considered under Section 110A and cannot be refused merely by relying on the subsequent amendment. Earlier directions concerning provisional release of similar goods remain applicable where no distinguishing feature exists. Upon compliance with lawful conditions, the goods are to be provisionally released pending adjudication.

The first proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes Tribunal appellate jurisdiction over orders relating to goods imported as baggage. Gold chains brought into India by an arriving international passenger retain their character as baggage regardless of the method of carriage or issues concerning the merits of confiscation. Challenges to confiscation orders involving such baggage must therefore be pursued through the statutory revisionary remedy under Section 129DD, rather than by appeal before the Tribunal. Appeal papers filed before the Tribunal are to be returned for pursuing revision.

Article 227 supervisory intervention in ongoing arbitration is confined to a manifest and patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Where the arbitration agreement, its invocation for a joint venture, and commencement of the reference are undisputed, a dispute over a liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue proceedings falls within the arbitral tribunal's competence. A joint venture constituent that remains silent after notice of the liquidator's asserted authority may be treated as having acquiesced. Equitable supervisory relief is unavailable where intervention seeks to terminate a pre-existing claim rather than protect the joint venture's interests, particularly where the conduct is in bad faith.

Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ends a corporate debtor's liability for offences committed before commencement of CIRP once an approved resolution plan results in a qualifying change in management or control. The immunity can protect a successor company that takes over and amalgamates with the former corporate debtor, preventing civil or criminal liability for the predecessor's pre-CIRP acts, including alleged Air Act offences. Its application is company-specific: proceedings may be quashed against the protected successor without affecting prosecution of the remaining accused.

Tribunal leave is mandatory for continuation of a pending suit by or against a company in liquidation. Where joint reliefs are sought against the company and a co-defendant, the claimant cannot maintain the suit or appeal by deleting the company from the parties. The liquidator must be served and represented in proceedings involving the company in liquidation. The commercial judgment was set aside, and the suit was remitted for fresh consideration only if leave is obtained from the Tribunal to continue proceedings against the company.

Non-party former management, including a shareholder and personal guarantor, cannot seek recall of an order concerning resolution-plan implementation merely because counsel appeared in the proceedings. Participation rights are subordinate to timely insolvency resolution; without creditor status, impleadment, permitted intervention, or legal injury, no locus standi arises. Where a successful resolution applicant has paid the upfront amount but possession of the corporate debtor's property remains withheld through unauthorised occupation, excluding time for payment obligations facilitates implementation without modifying the approved resolution plan. The Adjudicating Authority may grant that extension without express committee of creditors concurrence.