GST administration introduces Multistate Registration for normal taxpayers seeking registrations under the same PAN across multiple States or Union Territories. A Master TRN enables submission of Common Registration Information, followed by separate jurisdiction-specific TRNs with auto-populated but editable common details. GSTAT procedures cover respondents' replies and transfer appeals for identical legal questions pending before different benches, allowing qualifying taxpayers with multiple PAN-linked registrations to consolidate matters. Potential policy measures include easing blocked input tax credit and protecting genuine recipients affected by supplier defaults.

Personal guarantor insolvency resolution proceedings require resolution professionals to electronically file prescribed PGIRP forms with complete and accurate records. PGIRP-1 records the interim resolution professional's section 99 report and recommendation on admission or rejection. PGIRP-2A records rejection of an application under section 100, while PGIRP-2B records admission, publication of a public notice, and creditor claim timelines. Filing failures, incomplete records, or inaccurate information may attract regulatory action, including refusal to issue or renew an Authorisation for Assignment.

VAT and sales-tax litigation reached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition challenging a High Court order. Delay in filing was condoned. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the challenged order and dismissed the petition, with pending applications disposed of. The disposition leaves the High Court order undisturbed and identifies no substantive VAT or sales-tax principle.

Supreme Court ruling on legislative competence over intoxicating liquors addressed the division between State power under Entry 8 of List II and Parliamentary control of industries under Entry 52 of List I. Its scope did not extend to service tax on services used in job-work production. Precedent binds only on issues actually decided and cannot be applied to a distinct service-tax question that was not considered. The ruling therefore did not establish invalidity of the service-tax demand or absence of jurisdiction to levy service tax on the job-work service. Relevant precedent may also be relied on during hearing without a separate application.

Interest on an investigation deposit is payable from the date of deposit until the date of refund where the underlying demand is set aside. Once the demand ceased to be payable from inception, the retained amount was not lawfully due. Dismissal of the Revenue's subsequent challenge did not justify withholding the refunded amount without interest during the period of retention.

Section 45(1)'s first proviso places women in a special category and permits an exception to the statutory twin conditions for bail. Exercise of that benefit remains discretionary on the facts, but denial requires specific reasons. Where the bail order is reasoned, the accused cooperated, the investigation is complete, the complaint has been filed, custody is unnecessary, and an early trial is unlikely because of extensive evidence and witnesses, cancellation of regular bail is not warranted and bail continues.

Prematurity of the challenge resulted in disposal of the special leave petition without it being entertained. The petitioners may request the Adjudicating Authority to adjourn its proceedings until judgment is delivered in the connected civil appeal concerning the underlying issue. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Unilateral revocation of a joint development agreement and power of attorney did not, at the interim stage, establish grounds to exclude the subject land from the corporate insolvency resolution process. The development rights prima facie appeared irrevocable and non-determinable, while the contractual construction period had not expired. The asserted termination and conditional no-objection communication remained disputed, and existing mortgage and potential third-party rights could not be conclusively excluded. The landowner was permitted to intervene; exclusion of the land was declined at this stage, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo pending disposal of the appeals.

Supreme Court deferral directions addressing delayed adjudication do not require writ proceedings to continue after provisional assessments culminate in appealable adjudication orders. Section 128(1) of the Customs Act provides an efficacious appellate route for challenging the legality of such orders, the consequences of alleged delay, and claims relating to furnished securities. Writ jurisdiction should not bypass that remedy absent exceptional circumstances. Material non-disclosure of a pre-existing adjudication order may also weigh against discretionary writ relief. The competent appellate forum may determine all related contentions in accordance with law.

Customs civil appeal was dismissed on both delay and merits grounds after hearing counsel for the appellant and the caveating respondent. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. No statutory provision, factual dispute, substantive customs issue, or reasoning supporting either ground is identified, so the operative result is confined to dismissal of the appeal and disposal of related applications.

Civil appeals arising from a CESTAT order in a customs dispute were dismissed because no reason was found to entertain them. The dismissal left the challenged appellate order in place, and pending applications were disposed of. No substantive customs-law principle, statutory interpretation, or independent ground for interference was stated; dismissal was confined to non-entertainment of the appeals.

Condonation of delay was refused because the special leave petition was filed after a prolonged delay and was also refilled late. Finding no grounds to excuse either delay, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and disposed of pending applications. The refusal of condonation brought the special leave proceedings to an end without consideration of the underlying dispute.

Under the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Appellate Authority must afford an opportunity of hearing, undertake necessary inquiry, and confirm, modify, or annul the challenged order through a written decision identifying the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Non-appearance may justify ex parte adjudication but not dismissal for want of prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits. An appellate order merely recording that grounds were perused and no interference was warranted is not a speaking order. Failure to consider an adjournment request, provide hearing, or record reasons breaches natural justice; penalty merits require fresh determination after hearing.

Interest on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit is calculated under section 50(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 88B(3) from the actual date of utilisation until reversal, rather than from an earlier date of availment. Where verification establishes the utilisation and reversal dates, interest must cover that intervening period only. The assessment must be modified to correct any interest computation beginning before actual utilisation.

Interest on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit must be computed from the actual date of utilisation until the date of reversal. Section 50(3), read with rule 88B(3), does not permit interest to be calculated from an earlier date merely because the credit was wrongly availed. Where interest has been computed from an incorrect earlier date, the assessment order requires modification to apply the revised computation. Statutory appeal or revision remains available for any other disputed issue.

Section 107 of the GST law requires the Appellate Authority to provide a hearing, make necessary inquiry, and issue a written order identifying the issues, decision, and reasons. An appellant's non-appearance may permit ex parte consideration but does not permit dismissal for non-prosecution. An appellate order that ignores an adjournment request and merely records that no interference is warranted, without reasoned consideration of the appeal grounds, breaches those requirements. The matter was remanded for fresh merits adjudication after hearing.

Customs adjudication orders require challenges to determinations, related bank guarantees, and alleged adjudicatory delay to be pursued before the statutory appellate forum in the first instance. A direction to defer matters involving delay in adjudication does not extend to a writ where Orders-in-Original have already been issued; the dispute is no longer one concerning pending adjudication. Relief restraining finalisation of provisional assessments becomes infructuous after adjudication. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, writ jurisdiction cannot bypass the appellate remedy, and non-disclosure of a material prior adjudication order affects writ relief. The merits of the orders and consequences of alleged delay remain open before the appellate authority.

Unilateral cancellation of an irrevocable joint development agreement and power of attorney was treated prima facie as ineffective where they conferred development rights on the corporate debtor and barred unilateral revocation. The construction period ran from requisite approvals and had been extended, while an alleged no-objection remained conditional and unaccepted. Land subject to mortgage and possible third-party rights was not excluded from the corporate insolvency resolution process at this stage. The landowner could intervene, and all parties were required to maintain status quo pending disposal of the appeal.

The first proviso to section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act creates a case-specific exception for women seeking bail from the statutory twin conditions. The benefit is discretionary, not automatic, and depends on the facts. Completion of investigation, filing of the complaint, time in custody, and absence of any investigative need for the woman's presence supported the grant of regular bail; no basis arose to cancel it.

Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives a secured creditor priority over other debts and charges through its overriding provision. A creditor holding a prior registered mortgage may enforce the secured asset notwithstanding an interim attachment obtained in arbitral proceedings. An attachment entry in the encumbrance record cannot obstruct enforcement or create a cloud over the mortgaged property's title. The attaching creditor may pursue any surplus remaining after the secured debt has been satisfied.