Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.

Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.

Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.

Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.

Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.

Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.

Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.

Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.

Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.

Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.

Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.

Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.

E way bill compliance: omission of conveyance details alone should not justify automatic seizure absent intent to evade tax.
Omission of the vehicle number in Part B of an e way bill, where goods are transferred to a transporter for onward carriage and tax invoiced at applicable rates with registered parties, does not by itself indicate intent to evade tax. Authorities must apply proportionality and consider relevant exemptions and documentary compliance before resorting to detention or seizure under the e way regulatory scheme.

Appearance under summons: accused not treated as in custody and need not apply for bail; ED arrest power limited after cognizance.
Appearance pursuant to a summons under section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA does not amount to custody; section 437 CrPC therefore does not apply solely on that basis. Sections 205 and 88 CrPC apply to PMLA complaints-allowing dispensation of personal attendance and bonds-yet acceptance of a bond under section 88 is not a grant of bail. Special Courts may issue warrants under section 70 for non appearance and may cancel such warrants on undertakings. After cognizance under section 4 on a section 44(1)(b) complaint, ED officers cannot arrest the accused under section 19.

Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.

Record Maintenance under CGST: due process required before determining tax liability and imposing penalties or confiscating goods.
The judgment emphasizes that maintenance of accurate records, including electronic records under Section 35, is mandatory; tax determination on unaccounted goods under Section 35(6) must follow the procedural safeguards of Sections 73 or 74, including issuance of a show cause notice; confiscation under Section 130 requires proof of statutory prerequisites such as intent to evade tax or failure to account for goods; and penalties under Section 122 must be categorised according to whether tax evasion is quantified, with non-evastion contraventions attracting the statutory ceiling applicable to that category.

Deemed supply from unaccounted stock: tax liability must be determined through assessment procedures, not survey provisions.
Excess or unaccounted stock discovered during a survey constitutes a deemed supply for tax purposes, but the determination and quantification of tax liability on such deemed supply must be effected through the statutory assessment procedure; invoking the survey-specific provision as the primary basis for separate proceedings is inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction: Defer to statutory remedies under SARFAESI to preserve sale finality.
The note explains that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from exercising Article 226 writ jurisdiction where an effective statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act exists, particularly in recovery matters; confirmed and registered auction sales attain finality and the right of redemption is extinguished, and interference is permissible only in narrow exceptions such as proven fraud, collusion, or clear statutory or procedural violations.

Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.