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.

Penalty under section 125 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot exceed the statutory maximum prescribed for the contravention. Where the registered person has filed the return, discharged tax liability and paid the applicable late fee, a penalty imposed above that cap is unsustainable. The excessive penalty and the related show-cause notice are liable to be set aside.

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.

Funds in foreign bank accounts subject to a provisional attachment and confirmation should remain attached while a challenge to those orders awaits determination. Transfer to another overseas bank may be declined where adequate details of the overseas business operations requiring use of the funds have not been disclosed, since such transfer could dilute the effect of the existing attachment. Transfer may instead be sought through enforcement authorities in a manner that preserves the attachment.

Retention of property under attachment as proceeds of crime requires a demonstrable nexus between the property and criminal activity connected with a scheduled offence. Payments arising from debenture subscriptions, consultancy arrangements, and sale of a dairy business may remain independent commercial transactions where their timing and available material do not connect them to alleged criminal proceeds. Banking investments and loans made through official channels do not, without evidence of illegality or diversion, establish that property is proceeds of crime. Without that evidentiary link, continued attachment of the property is unwarranted.

A Resolution Professional removed and replaced during a personal insolvency resolution process has no continuing authority or interest to pursue process-related appeals concerning convening a creditors' meeting or considering a repayment plan. Any challenge to the validity of the removal must be pursued separately in an appeal directed against the removal order. Where the newly appointed Resolution Professional is prepared to convene the creditors' meeting, the former Resolution Professional lacks a subsisting role in those process-related proceedings.

Interim physical possession of secured property was directed to be transferred to the purchaser, who had paid the full sale consideration and held a registered sale certificate. The Bankruptcy Trustee had taken possession after appellate interim protection in the bankruptcy proceedings was vacated. Transfer remained subject to restrictions against creating third-party rights or making major alterations, and to further orders and the writ petition's final outcome. Questions concerning the bankruptcy process and the auction-payment timeline remained for final adjudication.

At the cognizance stage for alleged contravention of the Companies Act, scrutiny is limited to the complaint and supporting material to determine whether they disclose a prima facie case. Defence material and explanations cannot be assessed through a mini-trial at that preliminary stage. Allegations of non-cooperation with an investigation, supported by the complaint record, may justify cognizance and issuance of process where the order demonstrates application of mind to the available material.

Extended recovery of customs duty under Section 28(4) requires evidence that the importer colluded, wilfully misstated facts, or suppressed material facts. Where the importer submitted a certificate of origin and import documents accepted at clearance, and recovery was initiated nearly five years later without documentary evidence supporting those allegations, the extended limitation provision was inapplicable. Recovery proceedings based on that provision were therefore unsustainable.

Foreign Trade Policy import restrictions apply by reference to the policy-defined date of shipment or dispatch from the supplying country, rather than the Bill of Entry filing, out-of-charge, or customs-clearance date. For air imports, the relevant Airway Bill evidencing departure from the last airport in the exporting country determines that date. Customs Act duty-assessment timing does not govern import-policy restrictions. A restrictive notification takes legal effect only upon electronic Gazette publication and operates prospectively unless statutory authority permits retrospectivity. Goods dispatched and arriving before publication remain governed by the earlier policy; executive memoranda cannot retrospectively alter that position.

Cash found in a jointly held bank locker is not assessable as unexplained money under section 69A where its nature and source are plausibly explained through surrounding circumstances and supporting material. Confirmations, bank records, family-ceremony evidence, regular cash withdrawals and disclosed income can substantiate the explanation and shift the burden to the Revenue to prove it false or inherently improbable. Mere doubts based on human probabilities, without rebuttal evidence, do not displace a supported explanation; suspicion cannot replace proof.

Rectification jurisdiction under Section 254(2) is limited to a mistake apparent from the record existing when the original appellate order was passed. A subsequent legislative amendment, even if retrospective, and a later Supreme Court order do not form part of the legal position then available for deciding the appeal. Treating either later development as an apparent mistake would convert the narrow rectification power into a review mechanism for a concluded decision. Accordingly, retrospective insertion of Section 147A and the subsequent judicial order do not support recall or modification under Section 254(2).