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.

Valid registration under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act is a mandatory condition for claiming input tax credit. Section 13(1), read with the statutory definition in Section 2(P), requires a dealer to hold a valid registration certificate. Dealers who are unregistered and lack such a certificate do not meet the statutory eligibility requirement and cannot avail input tax credit.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, founded on relevant material and followed by the statutory adjudication process, is not ordinarily amenable to writ review of disputed evidence. Judicial review may examine the existence of material and legality of the decision-making process, but does not determine the truth or probative value of competing evidence on property provenance or its nexus with proceeds of crime. Acceptance of a cash explanation in income-tax proceedings does not establish lawful criminal provenance or bar a money-laundering inquiry. An alleged defect in the subsequent Adjudicating Authority's composition is severable and does not retrospectively invalidate an independent provisional attachment.

Cheque-dishonour liability may be supported by a written and notarised acknowledgement of an independently enforceable monetary debt; acquittal in a separate criminal prosecution does not, by itself, negate that liability. Proof of drawing, presentation and dishonour gives rise to statutory presumptions of consideration and liability, rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities through a probable defence rather than an unsupported claim. Registered-post dispatch to the drawer's admitted address supports presumed service of the demand notice, while receipt of summons provides an opportunity to pay within fifteen days. Revisional review remains limited to perversity, evidentiary absence, gross illegality, or procedural miscarriage in concurrent findings.

Fiscal classification depends on the form in which goods are sold at the taxable event, rather than on a consumer's later use. Strict construction precludes importing an end-use criterion where a statutory entry classifies goods by physical form. Where a beverage entry groups beverages with syrups, cordials, distilled juices, ark and essences, ejusdem generis confines the entry to comparable liquid preparations. The word "including" does not extend that entry to materially different forms without an express deeming provision. GRD Powder and GRD Mix, sold respectively as powder and biscuit, therefore fall under the residuary classification despite possible later preparation as drinks.

Extended limitation for a service tax demand cannot rest on alleged suppression where ST-3 returns and material facts were already available to the Department when it issued an earlier show-cause notice on the same or similar facts. Departmental knowledge of those facts prevents their later characterisation as suppression. The subsequent notice must therefore be restricted to the normal limitation period, making invocation of the extended period unsustainable.

Service-tax treatment of lease termination payments depends on their character and receipt. A compensatory sum stipulated for premature vacation, not received under a compromise and not representing rent for continued occupation, is excluded from taxable renting consideration. Lease-rent liability for a period after vacation requires exclusion of unsupported rent, availability of the small-service-provider exemption, and adjustment for tax previously paid. Where competing lease agreements state different rents, a rent figure corroborated by the tenant's confirmation supports tax computation, while a later lower-rent agreement may be less credible. The discussion distinguishes unreceived breach compensation from taxable actual lease rent.