Challenges to liquidation-sale steps, including the effect of an earlier interim order, sale of assets in parts, and title to certain land blocks, require consideration. The scheduled auction may proceed while the appeals remain pending, but no sale may be confirmed without leave. Notice was issued and the appeals were listed for further hearing.

Retrospective section 16(5) and section 16(6) relief permits eligible input tax credit previously denied under section 16(4) to be considered in pending proceedings and specified rectification cases. Orders confirming such denial may be rectified through the special procedure where no appeal has been filed, subject to electronic application, prescribed supporting details, and consideration of other denial grounds. The procedure is limited to credit now available under the retrospective provisions. Tax already paid or credit already reversed is not refundable solely due to the retrospective amendments, except for eligible appeal pre-deposits.

CENVAT credit is admissible on MS channels, angles and sheets used for repair, maintenance and fabrication of plant, machinery and capital goods within the factory. The earlier Larger Bench approach denying credit solely because structural steel items fell under Chapter 72 had been expressly overruled. Structural steel used for repairing and maintaining plant and machinery has a sufficient nexus with the manufacture of final products, making the disputed steel items eligible for credit.

A defined right of way acquired by grant continues according to its terms and cannot be displaced merely because an alternative route becomes available. The requirement under the Indian Easements Act, 1882 to exercise an easement in the least onerous manner for the servient owner does not authorise substitution of the granted route. Extinction on cessation of necessity applies only to easements of necessity, not easements created by grant. Dominant owners therefore remain entitled to use the established route through the servient land despite alternative access.

Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is described as restricting only transfers of part of an agricultural holding, not transfer of the holding as a whole. The distinction is based on the provision's language and anti-fragmentation purpose: a whole-holding transfer changes ownership without fragmenting the holding, so prior written permission is not required. The text further states that, where Hindi and English versions of a State enactment conflict, Article 348 gives controlling effect to the authoritative English text; adoption of Hindi for official purposes does not displace that rule.

Illegal gratification sought in the name of Customs Officers for facilitating goods clearance is prohibited. Trade participants must not pay Customs Brokers or intermediaries amounts attributed to officer demands or customs handling charges, as such payments may perpetuate corruption and entail penal consequences. Only applicable statutory duties, cess, fine, penalty and interest are collectible online through the Icegate portal. Demands, harassment or undue delay in clearance or official functions may be promptly reported with available evidence, and complaints are to be handled confidentially and examined or referred for action.

Biometric-based Aadhaar authentication for GST registration applicants is to be undertaken through designated Facilitation Centers under the proviso to sub-rule (4A) of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The notification maps specified State Tax circles, AC/CTO wards and ward headquarters across the notified zones to corresponding Facilitation Centers and their office locations. The designated network covers jurisdictional areas throughout Rajasthan, including Bikaner, Jaipur, Pali, Ajmer, Udaipur, Bhiwadi, Jodhpur, Alwar, SriGanganagar, Bhilwara, Bharatpur and Kota zones. It takes effect from 7 January 2025.

Competition law procedure requires the Competition Commission to notify and hear an opposite party when departing from the Director General's findings. The penalty order concerning alleged abuse of dominance in viscose staple fibre supply was set aside because Grasim Industries was not given an opportunity to respond to the Commission's disagreement with the investigative findings. The matter was remanded for fresh, time-bound consideration without a finding on the merits.

Execution of a sale deed pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction completed the conveyance and entitled the purchaser to possession of the property covered by that deed. The Karnataka HC's analysis states that this entitlement extended to vacant possession of the five-acre parcel forming part of the purchased land. Respondent No. 2 was directed to deliver vacant possession by 28 February 2019.

Committees have been constituted to review or revise refund, rectification, and reduced-demand orders under the Rajasthan GST framework for financial years 2022-23 to 2024-25. They must verify the legality or propriety of such orders to safeguard revenue interests. Two committees comprising tax, audit, enforcement, compliance and accounts officers have been allocated specified tax zones, business audit wings and enforcement wings. They are required to commence work immediately and submit regular findings and reports to the Special Commissioner (GST).

Statutory pre-deposit compliance in GST appeals is described as a procedural requirement, requiring an opportunity to cure any deficiency before an appeal is rejected. The notes state that where the pre-deposit shortfall was rectified before the appellate authority issued its order, the appeal should proceed to determination on merits. Referring to similar High Court decisions, the text records that the appellate order was set aside and the GST appeal restored for fresh disposal after notice and adequate hearing.

Contractual reimbursement of GST on gas-transmission charges depends on a plausible reading of the Gas Sale Agreement, and an arbitral tribunal's construction is not displaced merely because another interpretation is possible. The notes state that reimbursement could not be sustained without admissible evidence linking GST-deposit receipts to the relevant gas transactions; reliance on unproved documents despite an unresolved objection offends natural justice. They also distinguish waiver from estoppel: waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right, while estoppel requires representation, reliance and alteration of position. Payment of prior invoices under a clause requiring payment before claims may preserve supply and does not, by itself, bar recurring invoice-based claims.

An efficacious statutory appellate remedy under the Finance Act, 1994 may preclude writ review of a service-tax adjudication order where no jurisdictional error is shown. The note states that the petitioner had not timely replied to the show-cause notice and filed a reply only after adjudication; the writ petition was therefore not examined on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal. It further records that time spent bona fide pursuing a writ petition, instituted within the appeal limitation period, may be excluded when computing limitation for the appeal. The petitioner was permitted to file the appeal within 30 days, with interim protection temporarily continued.

Failure to reply to a GST show-cause notice or participate in adjudication may warrant fresh consideration where non-participation resulted from inadequate information or instructions from an authorised representative and sufficient bona fide cause exists. The discussion stresses that principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity to file a reply, produce material and receive a personal hearing before the demand is determined. It also addresses writ jurisdiction despite an alternative GST appellate remedy, noting that judicial intervention may be available to secure an effective merits hearing. The deposited amount may be retained pending the outcome of fresh adjudication.

Condonation of delay should be considered through a justice-oriented approach where an appellant appearing without legal assistance could not file a condonation application or properly present grounds due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. The short delay was condoned because the appellant's lack of representation warranted an opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal with legal assistance. The appellate order was set aside, and the appeal was restored and remitted for fresh consideration on merits, with liberty to engage counsel and file additional grounds.

Ex parte GST adjudication orders passed after the taxpayer did not reply to show-cause notices or receive a hearing were set aside on the stated bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause for the omission. A justice-oriented approach supported granting a further opportunity to file replies and participate in the proceedings. The matters for the relevant financial years were remitted for fresh adjudication from the reply stage, subject to the stipulated deposit and an opportunity of hearing; consequential recovery proceedings were also set aside.

Additional input tax credit benefits must be passed to each eligible homebuyer through a commensurate reduction in price. The Tribunal found that, although benefits were passed to four buyers, the balance remained unpaid to two and constituted contravention of the anti-profiteering requirement. Free additional construction work could not replace the mandated price reduction, regardless of its value or the buyers' acknowledgement. Interest was payable from collection of the higher amount until actual payment because recipients were deprived of their monetary entitlement. Penalty applied to the continuing contravention after the penal provision took effect, subject to the statutory exemption where the profiteered amount is deposited within the prescribed period.

Prompt credit of refunds under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is emphasised despite the Scheme's exclusion of statutory refund interest. The notes state that excluding interest under section 244A does not justify revenue officials retaining a refund determined through Form No. 4 for months. They identify claimed non-availability of a processing module and competing statutory work as inadequate explanations for recurring delays, and record directions to verify system constraints and ensure timely refund processing. The writ petition remained pending while additional time was granted to report on credit of the processed refund.

Section 144C requires an eligible assessee challenging a draft assessment order to file objections with both the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer; filing only with the Assessing Officer does not satisfy the statutory requirement. In the absence of Panel objections, the Assessing Officer may complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order under Section 144C(3). The note further states that a challenge to such final assessment should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appeal available under Section 246A, rather than writ jurisdiction where an efficacious appellate remedy exists. The reported writ petition was dismissed, with assessment merits left for appellate consideration.

Interim release of seized cash to the Income Tax Department was treated as a protective arrangement pending determination of its source, tax liability and ownership. The Trial Court required an indemnity bond and deposit of the amount in a nationalised bank fixed deposit with automatic renewal, preserving the parties' positions until final adjudication. The High Court found that this arrangement caused no prejudice warranting intervention under Articles 226 and 227, as all substantive issues remained open. The criminal petition challenging the interim arrangement was dismissed, while the income-tax proceedings were to be concluded expeditiously and further relief could be sought before the Trial Court.