Section 151A and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 require randomised automated allocation for reassessment functions, including the section 148A process and issuance of section 148 notices. General concurrent-jurisdiction directions cannot permit a jurisdictional Assessing Officer to bypass the prescribed faceless allocation, because allocation determines the officer's statutory competence. Risk-based selection of a matter is distinct from algorithmic allocation of the officer. Section 147A's retrospective deeming rule was held unconstitutional because it did not amend the continuing statutory and scheme-based requirements for automated allocation, and therefore did not remove the legal foundation of prior jurisdictional rulings. Administrative instructions cannot override the Act or a valid notified scheme.

Doctrine of merger under Article 136 depends on whether the Supreme Court granted leave and exercised appellate jurisdiction, not merely on disposal of a special leave petition. A non-speaking refusal of leave neither merges the challenged order nor confirms its reasoning, creates automatic res judicata, or independently bars review or writ proceedings. A speaking refusal likewise does not cause merger, although legal propositions expressly declared may bind under Article 141. Merger follows when leave is granted and the appeal is decided. In remanded GST proceedings, an earlier dismissal of special leave therefore does not prevent consideration of residual grounds or reliance on a later binding ruling, subject to applicable review, limitation, and procedural requirements.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes cumulative conditions for bail in commercial-quantity offences: after the Public Prosecutor has an opportunity to oppose, the court must record reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. General bail considerations and Article 21 concerns, including prolonged custody and trial delay, remain relevant but do not replace this statutory inquiry. Non-recovery, procedural objections, or exclusion of inadmissible statements cannot alone satisfy either condition; the available record requires broad assessment. For foreign nationals in commercial-quantity matters, verified sureties, passport deposit and other enforceable safeguards may be required, while technological tracking must remain proportionate.

Customs-duty liability for pilfered imported goods arises under Section 45(3) only where the goods were unloaded in a customs area and pilfered while in the custody of a person approved under Section 45(1). Approval is a necessary precondition, so liability does not extend to pilferage before the approval became operative. A statutory port authority may be an approved custodian, and its civil responsibilities as bailee do not displace its separate revenue liability. The importer's duty exemption for pilferage operates alongside the custodian's statutory obligation. Pilferage, rather than an unexplained cargo discrepancy or non-pilferage loss, must be established through contemporaneous custody and security records.

This is a neutral professional article. The judgment is analysed in the context of its factual background, issues framed, and conclusions reached by the Court. 2026 (9) TMI 1612 - CESTAT CHENNAI At a Glance • STA micro-cuvettes designed exclusively for a coagulation analyser, comprising a plastic cartridge body and an enclosed steel ball, have been held classifiable under CTI 9027 9090 rather than CTI 3926 9099. • The controlling inquiry is not whether the article is disp... ... ...

MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 31st October, 2023 G.S.R. 808(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (p) and (q) of sub-section (2) of section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, namely :- 1. (1) These rules ... ... ...

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may apply to special-law appeals through Section 29(2) unless the governing enactment excludes it expressly or by necessary implication. A special limitation period alone is insufficient; exclusion may arise from phrases such as "but not thereafter" or "not exceeding", a defined condonable ceiling, or a self-contained scheme that selectively confers condonation. For appeals under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, the 30-day period and certified-copy exclusion do not bar Section 5 because no outer limit or equivalent restrictive language exists. Delay remains condonable only upon sufficient cause, while applicability before non-court statutory forums depends on the forum and enactment.

This is a neutral professional article. The judgment is analysed in the context of its factual background, issues framed, and conclusions reached by the Court. 2026 (10) TMI 75 - GSTAT VARANASI At a Glance • For road movement of a consignment exceeding the prescribed threshold, Rule 138 requires the relevant information to be furnished and the e-way bill to be generated before commencement of movement. • The person in charge must carry both the invoice, bill of supply or ... ... ...

This commentary provides doctrinal analysis and practical insights on the legal issue discussed below. The judgment is analysed in the context of its factual background, issues framed, and conclusions reached by the Court. 2026 (9) TMI 2055 - GSTAT RAIPUR 1. Introduction Appellate tax adjudication is not satisfied by the mere affirmation or reversal of an assessment order. A statutory appeal requires the appellate authority to engage with the grounds that are material to the dispute, th... ... ...

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-II(IMPORT) CUSTOM HOUSE, NO.60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600001 F.No. CUS/APR/MISC/1247/2025-PI DATED: 07-10-2026 PUBLIC NOTICE No. 138/2026 Subject: - Attention of all the Importers, Customs Brokers and all relevant stakeholders associated with Chennai Customs House under Project Import Scheme are invited towards Project Import Regulations, 1986, CBIC Circular No... ... ...

P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ. JUDGMENT BHAGWATI, J. The facts giving rise to these appeals are set out in the judgment about to be delivered by our learned brother S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and we do not think it necessary to reiterate them. So far as Civil Appeals 572-574 of 1972 are concerned, it would be sufficient to state briefly the following facts as these are the only facts necessary for appreciating the question of law which arises for determination in these appeals. In the a... ... ...

Natural justice in GST adjudication requires the Proper Officer to consider a taxpayer's representation under section 74(9) read with rule 142(4). Form GST DRC-06 need not be furnished exclusively through the electronic portal; a manually filed reply acknowledged at personal hearing cannot be disregarded solely because it was unavailable online. Issuing a demand order before expiry of time allowed for supporting documents, without addressing the reply or jurisdictional objection, denies a meaningful hearing. Such procedural defects support writ intervention despite an alternative statutory remedy. The demand order was set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication, with jurisdictional and merits objections left open.

Recipient input tax credit did not require reversal solely because a supplier issued credit notes during the relevant period: neither the Act nor the Rules imposed that obligation, the statutory matching mechanism was inoperative, and Rule 37 concerned non-payment to suppliers. Accordingly, the premise for reversal failed. Excess IGST adjusted against CGST and SGST liabilities was procedurally irregular because the prescribed refund, re-credit or subsequent IGST-adjustment route was not used. However, as a bona fide first-year GST correction causing no revenue loss, it did not justify a fresh tax demand, interest or penalty; the departmental appeal was dismissed.

Assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot to a third party is treated as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property rather than a GST-taxable supply. A binding High Court ruling on that characterisation remains operative absent a stay or recall, notwithstanding an intended review. GST is therefore not leviable on such assignment, and the appellate order rejecting the departmental challenge stands sustained.

Retrospective contractual price escalation fixes the true value of pre-GST clearances from their original clearance date. Section 142(2)(a) permits GST-compliant debit notes and post-transition reporting of differential tax, but does not create a new taxable event or defer accrual of the enhanced value. Differential tax on the increased value is therefore due from inception, making statutory interest mandatory despite the absence of formal provisional assessment. Penalty under section 122 is not warranted where the differential tax is voluntarily paid after price finalisation under a bona fide understanding of complex transitional provisions, without suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement or deliberate evasion.

Credit notes validly issued for returned or rejected supplies reduce taxable turnover and are deductible from adjusted total turnover under the zero-rated supply refund formula. Credit notes issued during the refund period against invoices for Financial Year 2019-20 after expiry of the statutory time limit cannot be excluded from adjusted total turnover and must be included on recomputation. As the recomputed refund remained within the maximum permissible amount, the refund already sanctioned remained admissible and the Revenue challenge failed.

For inverted duty structure refunds, credit notes issued for returned or rejected supplies generally reduce taxable turnover and adjusted total turnover. Credit notes relating to invoices from an earlier financial year but issued after the statutory period for issuing and declaring them cannot be excluded from adjusted total turnover. Their value must therefore be included when recomputing accumulated input tax credit refund under Rule 89(5), reducing the refund to the permissible amount and requiring recovery of any excess refund.

Departmental GST appeals challenging only a penalty must assess the disputed penalty against the applicable monetary threshold under the departmental litigation policy. An exception to that policy must be specifically identified and supported by the relevant facts and basis; it cannot be presumed. Commissioner authorisation to file an appeal under section 112(3) does not independently establish an exception or dispense with compliance with the monetary-limit policy. Absence of material showing a recorded case-specific opinion under a residual exception makes the appeal non-maintainable, without determination of the underlying tax merits.

GST demands alleging bogus inward supplies require proof that the supplier firm was non-existent or that tax evasion occurred. Registration of the firm and filing of relevant statutory returns supported its existence. In the absence of evidence disproving those facts or establishing tax evasion, the allegation of a bogus or non-existent firm could not sustain the GST demand or penalty. The deletion of the demand and penalty was consequently maintained, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Departmental GST appeals below the prescribed monetary limit are governed by binding litigation-policy circulars. The disputed amount must be computed under the circular, and Revenue must establish a recognised exception. Reliance on the residual interest-of-justice-or-revenue exception requires the Commissioner's recorded, case-specific opinion and its basis; a general appellate authorisation is insufficient. Without such exception or supporting record, the departmental appeal was unmaintainable and dismissed at the threshold, leaving the underlying tax merits undecided.