Statutory limits on GST seizure require return of retained mobile phones and debit cards without a valid extension.
Section 67(7) establishes a six-month return rule where no notice in respect of seized goods is issued. Any further period requires sufficient cause, action by the proper officer, and a maximum further period of six months; ongoing investigation cannot replace an actual extension order. Although Section 67(7) uses "goods" while Section 67(2) also covers documents, books and things, its application to seized mobile phones and bank debit cards indicates that classification cannot be used to avoid the temporal restriction where articles are held under statutory seizure.

Analytical cartridge classification follows functional integration and sole-use suitability, not plastic composition, disposability, or general consumable character.
STA micro-cuvettes containing an enclosed steel ball are assessed as complete functional components of a blood-coagulation analyser, rather than merely as plastic laboratory articles. Classification turns on their objective design, analytical role, exclusive or principal suitability and absence of practical general use. Chapter 90 Note 2 requires consideration of an independent specific heading first and then classification of other dedicated parts or accessories with the relevant instrument. Disposable or single-use status and plastic composition do not by themselves establish classification as residual plastic articles.

Speaking appellate orders require findings on material GST appeal grounds, ensuring fair hearings and meaningful higher review.
Section 107(12) requires a written appellate order identifying material points for determination, deciding them, and giving reasons. Formulaic confirmation of original assessment does not establish independent appellate consideration, particularly where jurisdiction, notice, evidence, quantification, taxability, section 74 conditions, interest, or penalty are contested. Sections 74 and 75 require a defined notice, disclosure of relied-upon material, effective hearing, and reasoned determination within the notice's scope. Where procedural defects arise at the original stage as well as on appeal, reconsideration must occur at the level capable of curing the foundational defect without expanding the show-cause case.

Pre-movement e-way bill compliance requires invoices and transport records before dispatch, while later documents cannot cure undocumented transit.
Pre-movement e-way bill compliance requires issuance of an invoice at or before removal, generation of the e-way bill before road movement, and carriage of both records during transit. Where goods are intercepted without either record, the contravention arises upon commencement of undocumented movement; documents generated only after interception cannot retrospectively establish compliance. Such documents may still be considered with other contemporaneous evidence when assessing bona fides or alleged intent to evade tax. Section 129 detention proceedings remain subject to notice, hearing, electronic-summary and statutory-timeline requirements.

Automated allocation in reassessment determines officer jurisdiction, while retrospective validation cannot bypass continuing faceless-scheme requirements.
Section 151A and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 require covered reassessment functions and section 148 notice issuance through automated allocation. Risk-based selection of cases is distinct from randomised allocation of the officer authorised to act. Sections 148A and 148 form an integrated reassessment sequence, so general concurrent jurisdiction, administrative instructions or digital service cannot substitute for the prescribed faceless allocation. Section 147A did not amend the continuing statutory and scheme-based allocation requirements and is treated as constitutionally invalid.

Doctrine of merger distinguishes refusal of special leave from appellate disposal, preserving review subject to independent procedural limits.
Under Article 136, a refusal of special leave remains a discretionary leave-stage determination. A non-speaking dismissal does not merge the challenged lower-court decision into a Supreme Court order, affirm its reasoning, or automatically create res judicata. A speaking refusal may bind only as to legal propositions expressly declared under Article 141, without producing merger. Merger arises when leave is granted and appellate jurisdiction is exercised. Review, writ, and remanded proceedings remain subject to independent procedural requirements, including limitation and safeguards against abuse.

NDPS commercial-quantity bail requires independent proof of non-guilt and low reoffending risk alongside proportionate safeguards.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes cumulative bail conditions in commercial-quantity cases: the court must find reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend while on bail. These requirements supplement ordinary bail factors and demand a genuine, provisional assessment of credible material. Personal liberty and trial delay remain relevant, but must be reconciled with the statutory threshold. Bail conditions, including verification safeguards for foreign nationals, must be proportionate, genuine and capable of enforcement.

Approved customs custodians bear duty for proven pilferage during custody, but not for losses before their approval takes effect.
Customs-duty liability for pilfered imported goods arises only where pilferage occurs after unloading in a customs area while goods are held by an approved custodian. Approval is indispensable; factual control or statutory custody alone does not impose this liability for a period before approval. Importer duty exemption for pre-clearance pilferage operates alongside the custodian's revenue liability. Pilferage must be proved through contemporaneous records and cannot be presumed from every cargo discrepancy, shortage, or loss.

Condonation of delay under Section 5 remains available in special statutory appeals unless the governing scheme clearly excludes it.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a special statutory appeal through Section 29(2) unless the governing enactment excludes it expressly or by necessary implication. A special limitation period alone is insufficient to exclude condonation. Restrictive language, a defined maximum condonable period, or a complete statutory limitation code may create a non-extendable outer limit. Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam contains a 30-day appeal period and excludes certified-copy time, but lacks an express bar or outer condonation ceiling; delay may therefore be considered upon proof of sufficient cause.

Genuine hardship in delayed revised-return claims requires prima facie verification without converting condonation into final tax adjudication.
Section 119(2)(b) may permit admission of a delayed revised-return claim where expiry of the Section 139(5) period causes genuine hardship. Condonation removes only the procedural bar and does not establish exemption, refund, or interest entitlement. Genuine hardship requires assessment of bona fides, the nature of the omission, promptness after discovery, legal plausibility, and the consequence of refusal. Circular No. 9/2015 permits prima facie verification and inquiry, but substantive taxability and refund entitlement remain for merits examination.

TDS credit after verified deduction protects taxpayers from demands and refund adjustments caused by deductor default.
TDS credit in domestic deductor-default cases depends on verified actual deduction from the taxpayer's income, not solely on deposit, TDS statements, Form 16 or Form 16A, or Form 26AS reflection. Section 205 bars direct or indirect recovery, including refund adjustment, to the extent tax was deducted. The taxpayer must provide reliable payment-specific evidence, and the Assessing Officer must verify the claim while the Department proceeds against the defaulting deductor.

Timely reserved judgments: a three-month framework, transparency, and staged remedies protect liberty and require reasoned decisions.
Reserved High Court judgments are subject to a three-month framework for a reasoned pronouncement, supported by monthly monitoring, status disclosures, date-recorded certified copies, and automated notice to advocates. Urgent matters may receive an operative-part pronouncement, but reasons must be uploaded within seven days or, where practical difficulties exist, within fifteen days. Parties may seek early pronouncement after the specified period and, after further delay, request withdrawal and assignment for a fresh hearing.

Settlement-price depression allegations require cogent proof of manipulation, not merely short exposure, closing sales, or position-limit non-disclosure.
Settlement-price depression under the PFUTP framework requires cogent proof of a manipulative act, device, scheme or artifice, not merely a substantial short derivative position, closing-window sales, or an incentive to benefit from a lower settlement price. Position concentration and position-limit non-disclosure are distinct from PFUTP fraud. Sales below the last traded price require market-wide causal analysis of other trading activity, execution mechanics, benchmark methodology, commercial rationale, and actual price impact. A genuine hedge and agency-attributed exposure do not, without further proof, establish manipulation.

Foreign LTC tax exemption requires domestic travel; employers must deduct tax on known non-exempt travel reimbursements.
Foreign LTC/LFC payments for itineraries containing an overseas leg are outside the Section 10(5) exemption, which is confined to actual eligible domestic travel subject to Rule 2B shortest-route and fare conditions. Under Section 192, employers must include known non-exempt payments in estimated salary and deduct tax; they cannot disregard available claim records showing foreign or circuitous travel. A recovery restraint does not automatically suspend the deduction obligation. Section 201 recipient-compliance conditions, interest, and penalty based on reasonable cause require separate analysis.

Inverted-duty GST refunds remain available where higher-taxed component inputs, rather than only principal inputs, cause accumulated eligible credit.
Refund of accumulated unutilised ITC under an inverted-duty structure depends on a causal link between higher-taxed input goods and lower-taxed output supplies. The test is not restricted to the principal raw material; higher-rated component inputs may support a claim despite parity between the principal input and output. Refund remains confined to credit on input goods, excluding input services and capital goods. Rule 89(5) separately determines the maximum refundable amount through its turnover-based formula, subject to statutory exclusions and prescribed filing and verification requirements.

Mandatory goods-detention timelines bar delayed GST penalty orders despite administrative complications, while independently lawful proceedings may remain available.
Section 129(3) imposes two mandatory sequential deadlines: a penalty notice must be issued within seven days of detention or seizure, and the penalty order must follow within seven days of service of that notice. The service date, rather than reply, valuation or intervening events, controls the latter period. Administrative difficulty cannot extend either deadline. The framework also requires a hearing, while inspection reporting timelines and administrative forms remain distinct and cannot dilute the statutory time limits.

Input tax credit requires actual supplier tax payment, while reversal must rest on transaction-specific evidence and procedures.
Input tax credit under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act is conditional upon actual payment of the tax charged on the supply to the Government. The condition is cumulative and is not replaced by the recipient's invoice, payment to the supplier, receipt of supply, return filing, or bona fides. Self-assessed credit is reversible with applicable interest where the supplier has not paid tax, but may be re-availed after subsequent supplier compliance. A bona fide-purchaser exception cannot be read into the actual-payment requirement, although any reversal or demand must rest on specific statutory facts, supporting material, and reasoned adjudication.

Vested appellate rights prevent later penalty-only pre-deposit conditions from burdening appeals arising from earlier commenced adjudication.
Substituted CGST pre-deposit requirement for penalty-only orders does not govern an appeal arising from a formal show-cause notice issued before 1 October 2025, absent express retrospective language or necessary implication. The right of appeal and its applicable conditions vest when the lis commences; a filing-stage deposit that bars institution is substantive, not merely procedural. Admitted amounts remain payable, while a mandatory applicable deposit cannot ordinarily be waived or reduced by the Appellate Authority.

Extended GST limitation requires show cause notices to plead fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression through specific factual allegations.
Section 74 requires the notice itself to state the material facts supporting the precise statutory limb invoked and the causal nexus between that conduct and the alleged tax consequence. The phrase "by reason of" requires a pleaded connection; a tax discrepancy coupled with a conclusory allegation of fraud or suppression is insufficient. The notice should identify the relevant act, omission, representation, non-disclosure or device, explain why it is deliberate or wilful, and enable an effective response.

Omission of export-refund restriction requires pending integrated-tax refund claims to be assessed under surviving statutory and procedural conditions.
Omission of Rule 96(10), effective from 08 October 2024 without a saving clause, applies to integrated-tax export-refund proceedings pending on that date. Such claims are assessed without the former restriction concerning specified notification benefits because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve an omitted subordinate rule. The omission does not remove independent requirements for zero-rated supplies, refund eligibility, export documentation, returns, limitation, verification, or the applicable Rule 96 and Rule 89 procedures.