Proper officer requirement invalidates notices issued by unauthorized DRI officials; statutory authority required for issuance.
A show cause notice issued by an Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was held not to be issued by a proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962; show cause notices must originate from an authority expressly empowered by statute, rule, notification or other lawful instrument, and notices issued by officers outside the statutory definition of proper officer lack validity and cannot ground further proceedings.

Writ petition as bypass of statutory remedies is impermissible; statutory remedy under tax law must be pursued first.
Writ petitions cannot be used to bypass available statutory remedies in tax matters; where a statutory remedy under the GST law exists, a taxpayer must pursue that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction. In the present facts, detention of goods and demand of tax and penalty led to a writ challenge which the High Court entertained on factual grounds, but the superior forum set aside that order and directed pursuit of the statutory remedy, noting the narrow exceptions permitting writ relief were not shown.

Reopening assessments beyond four years barred where full and true disclosure eliminates omission to disclose material facts.
Reopening an assessment beyond four years is permissible only if there was an omission to disclose material facts; where the assessee had fully and truly disclosed loan and interest details and the assessing officer merely sought a different view on deduction versus capitalization using the same material, the condition precedent for reopening under the proviso is not met and the notice to reopen cannot be sustained.

Principles of natural justice require hearing before rejecting an SVLDRS declaration, prompting fresh reconsideration with a speaking order.
An administrative rejection of an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for alleged ineligibility was found to have failed procedural fairness by denying notice and hearing. The court required the Designated Committee to reconsider the declaration after affording the applicant a hearing with prior intimation and to issue a reasoned speaking order reflecting the scheme's remedial purpose.

Extension of limitation period grants a 90-day filing window from March, or the longer balance where applicable.
Suo motu measures made the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded from computation of limitation and made any balance of limitation available from 01.03.2022; where limitation expired in that window, a 90 day period from 01.03.2022 applies, subject to any longer balance. The exclusion covers arbitration, commercial courts, negotiable instruments and related periods for instituting proceedings, condoning delay and termination timelines.

Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation: reassess imported used car value and penalty before absolute confiscation.
Rejection of the declared transaction value of an imported used car cannot rest solely on a Chartered Engineer report without due consideration of the importer's documentary submissions; where importation was not prohibited and only a policy condition on prior foreign use was breached, the authority must re determine assessable value and consider the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, including reassessment of penalty quantum and incidental charges.

Jurisdictional validity of show-cause notices: notices by officers lacking statutory authority are invalid and challengeable despite alternate remedies.
Show-cause notices issued by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who are not proper officers under the statutory scheme suffer from a jurisdictional defect and are non est; where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction an alternate remedy does not preclude challenge, and show-cause notices must have statutory backing and not be used as instruments of harassment.

Wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit: bail denied due to gravity of economic offence and nascent investigation.
Allegations assert coordinated issuance of fake invoices among about 56 firms to wrongfully claim Input Tax Credit, allegedly evading taxes amounting to Rs. 5.65 crore. Considering the scale, conspiratorial nature, and nascent stage of investigation, and recognising economic offences as particularly serious for public finances, the court refused bail to the applicant Saurabh Srivastava and dismissed the bail application.

Oppression and mismanagement: protection of initial shareholding and valuation to enable fair exit for aggrieved shareholder.
The petition alleged majority conduct that altered the petitioner's intended equity stake and diverted company funds, constituting unfair treatment of a minority shareholder. The tribunal preserved the petitioner's original shareholding at incorporation and directed a share valuation to enable a fair exit, with the company bearing the valuation fee and interim protection against further alteration of shareholding.

Bail presumption in money laundering cases requires reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty before release.
Money laundering bail applications balance the presumption that bail is the rule against offence gravity and statutory constraints. Courts consider nature and seriousness, evidence quality, accused's circumstances, risk of non appearance and witness tampering, and public interest. The twin condition requires prosecutorial opposition and that, if opposed, there be reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend; investigative stage, missing materials and absconding principal suspects materially affect this assessment.

Regulatory authority of RBI: directions in public interest can bar civil claims and restrain NBFC asset transfers.
RBI directions in public interest can prohibit an NBFC's asset alienation and bind civil claims even if the enabling provision is not cited; failure to challenge such directions constitutes waiver/acquiescence, preventing civil relief that conflicts with the direction. Constructive res judicata bars subsequent suits where the cause of action accrued earlier and was not raised, and winding-up petition commencement creates a suspect period during which transfers may be impeached as potentially fraudulent.

Arbitration appointment governs share-conversion dispute, shaping insolvency jurisdiction and conversion mechanics in related contracts.
Disputes over the conversion formula for optionally convertible redeemable preference shares following a qualified initial public offering were submitted to arbitration under agreements designating Mumbai and a three-arbitrator tribunal with a Chairperson. Parties disputed entitlement percentages and refund implications; compliance with SEBI Regulations required conversion prior to the QIPO. A related claim that unpaid redemption sums triggered corporate insolvency proceedings was assessed, and the factual record did not establish a contractual default sufficient to invoke the insolvency resolution process. Multiple arbitration agreements between the same parties permit separately constituted proceedings for international and domestic arbitration while retaining the same tribunal members.

Jurisdiction in customs seizure: police interceptions outside customs station amount to town seizure and invalidate statutory seizure.
Jurisdiction under the Customs Act depends on action by competent customs officers at the designated customs station; interceptions and initial custody by police constitute a town seizure, failing the statutory prerequisites for a valid customs seizure. The revenue bears the onus to prove goods are smuggled and that territorial and procedural jurisdictional requirements were satisfied before a seizure can be validly treated as a customs action.

Compounding of negotiable instrument offences permits settlement and release when parties compensate and consent at appellate stages.
Compounding under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be invoked at trial, appeal or revision where parties settle by payment and consent; courts treat the dishonour under Section 138 as a civil wrong with criminal penalties and may allow compounding, direct deposit of amounts and release from imprisonment to give effect to the compensatory mechanism.

Classification of gear components as machinery parts under tariff 8483 rather than as motor vehicle parts, based on nature and function.
Dispute on whether imported gear reduction blanks and related transmission components should be classified under tariff item 8483 as machinery parts or under tariff item 8708 as motor vehicle parts; prior rulings and interpretation of chapter notes direct classification to 8483 where the components are standalone gear or transmission parts rather than integral vehicle assemblies.

Right to be heard: foreclosure of the right to reply violates natural justice, requiring fresh adjudication with hearing.
Foreclosure of the noticee's opportunity to respond to a notice breaches the right to be heard and principles of natural justice. Where the adjudicating authority has foreclosed the reply, the matter should be returned to the original authority for fresh adjudication after the noticee is given opportunity to reply and to present factual and legal submissions, and after the authority issues notice of intent and completes adjudication with procedural fairness.

Duomatic principle upheld: unanimous member acquiescence prevents oppression or mismanagement findings in family company governance dispute.
The Duomatic Principle was applied to validate informal corporate acts where members gave unanimous or tacit assent: a director's withdrawal of resignation, the appointment of a managing director, and share transfers were held bona fide and not fraudulent. The appellant's prior knowledge and acquiescence estopped subsequent challenges, and she lacked locus to sue on behalf of trusts. Fraud remains an exception to Duomatic application; absent fraud and public prejudice, the facts did not constitute oppression or mismanagement.

Duomatic principle: unanimous member assent can validate informal corporate acts and bar oppression claims without fraud.
The Duomatic Principle validates informal corporate acts effected with unanimous or tacit member assent, permitting departure from strict statutory formalities where transactions are bona fide and free from fraud. Prior knowledge, acquiescence and estoppel by a complainant can negate claims of oppression or mismanagement arising from appointments, withdrawal of resignations, share transmissions, and conduct of meetings, preserving corporate finality and internal decision-making.

Dishonor of cheques enforcement: special courts, pre-summons mediation and a summons portal to reduce case pendency.
Dishonor of cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act is being approached through pre-summons mediation, a National Portal for summons, and establishment of special courts in high-caseload districts; proposals include using retired judicial officers and court staff, with coordination among the Union, High Courts and State Governments to reduce pendency in proceedings arising from cheque dishonour.

Dishonor of cheques procedure: streamline service of summons and preserve magistrate discretion on trial conversion.
Dishonour of cheques proceedings require prompt service of summons and retention of summary-trial procedures; reforms include shortening dishonour-slip practices, mandatory contact disclosure, creating a nodal agency for electronic service and issuing unique dishonour identifiers. Magistrates must record reasons when converting summary trials into summons trials; summary-trial procedure applies as far as may be. Inquiry mechanisms under the Code permit affidavits and document examination to test sufficiency of grounds. High Courts should direct that service in one complaint arising from the same transaction be treated as deemed service for related complaints and encourage use of inherent powers and mediation to reduce pendency.