AIFTA Certificates of Origin may be rejected only through compliance with the domestic verification safeguards in Rules 7(c) and 7(d); suspected fraud does not remove those requirements under Rule 23. Delayed, partial verification and an unauthenticated foreign finding of non-authenticity, without origin test reports, signature evidence or authenticated underlying material, do not establish fraudulent origin or justify denial of preferential tariff treatment. Extended limitation for customs recovery requires proof of the importer's positive collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression, including conscious participation in certificate falsification. Non-culpatory statements and absent evidence of knowledge or fraud do not sustain duty, interest or penalties under the extended period.

Official Liquidator claims arising on a winding-up order remain maintainable if the underlying claim was legally enforceable when winding-up commenced. Limitation runs for three years from the winding-up order under Article 137, while the applicable exclusion for winding-up proceedings and the additional year allowed under the Companies Act produce an aggregate four-year period. A Company Claim instituted within that period is not time-barred, and the preliminary limitation objection fails.

Regulation 20(1) requires a competing acquirer to make its public announcement within 15 working days of the first acquirer's detailed public statement. The period cannot be reckoned from dispatch or advertisement of the first acquirer's letter of offer, because that would disturb the uniform statutory timetable for competing offers and prejudice a compliant first offeror. A competing offer made after that period could not be entertained. Regulation 11 permits exemption only from the obligation to make an open offer; it does not waive procedural requirements or competing-offer timelines. Once the first open offer had concluded, the exemption request was untenable, without preventing a fresh takeover bid under the SAST Regulations.

IBC moratorium protects the corporate debtor but does not suspend or extinguish the personal statutory liability of directors or authorised signatories for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Expiry of the payment period after commencement of the moratorium is relevant but not conclusive. Specific allegations concerning the signatory's responsibility, issuance of cheques, and admitted signatures can sustain prosecution despite suspension of the board's powers, which does not retrospectively erase pre-moratorium acts. Defences based on knowledge, due diligence, or appointment of an insolvency professional require trial evidence and cannot ordinarily be determined in quashing proceedings. Accordingly, the moratorium did not bar the cheque-dishonour prosecution.

Approval of a resolution plan freezes and binds claims against the corporate debtor, including claims of central, state and local authorities. Statutory dues that are not included in the plan stand extinguished, and recovery proceedings for dues arising before approval cannot continue. Electricity-duty and mining-related demands were therefore unenforceable where the authorities, despite public notice, neither lodged claims during the corporate insolvency resolution process nor challenged approval of the plan. The outstanding claims were extinguished and the impugned demand notices were quashed.

Rule 5(5) of the 2013 Rules permits acceptance of a fixed deposit in substitution for attached jointly owned immovable property only to the extent of the concerned person's estimated share. Its discretionary wording does not create a general or enforceable right to secure release of PMLA-attached property by offering equivalent security; financial hardship and adequacy of security do not justify mandamus. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily bypass the PMLA appellate mechanism where no exceptional circumstance, natural justice breach, jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest illegality is shown. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the validity of attachment for the pending statutory appeals.

Attachment of proceeds of crime may extend beyond assets initially identified, including subsequently traced proceeds and property of equivalent value where directly derived property is unavailable. Property acquired before the scheduled offence may be attached where later premium payments or funding are traced to layered proceeds of crime. An inadvertent reference to an unrelated entity does not invalidate attachment where other material establishes the generation and use of tainted funds, and transferable movable property may warrant attachment. Discharge of another person in predicate-offence proceedings does not determine the role of a separate person or the source of attached property. Attachment may reach proceeds held by persons not accused in the predicate offence. The foreign insurance policy's attachment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Provisional attachment of properties held by company officials was sustained where they were found to have actively assisted directors in promoting unlawful preference-share schemes, mobilising public investments and diverting proceeds of the scheduled offence. Recorded statements and charge-sheet material linked the officials to the acquisition of properties in their names. Their claim that the properties were purchased solely from salary and incentives was rejected because the attached value was substantially lower than amounts received from the company. The attachment remains subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Construction services supplied to the identified statutory bodies qualified for exemption as services provided to governmental authorities because each recipient was created under statute. Denial of exemption to some recipients without reasons, despite acceptance for others with the same status, was set aside. For works-contract exemption applicable from 1 March 2016, the contract had to be entered into before 1 March 2015 and applicable stamp duty paid before that date. Documents subsequently produced to establish compliance required verification, so the affected contracts were remitted for de novo adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity.

Excise assessment of superior kerosene oil is determined by its form and exemption eligibility at factory removal. Kerosene cleared for sale through the Public Distribution System after satisfying exemption conditions does not become assessable at motor-spirit or high-speed-diesel rates merely because it later forms a pipeline interface beyond the refinery; an administrative circular cannot create liability contrary to governing provisions. The differential-duty demand on interface kerosene was therefore unsustainable. Extended limitation requires evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty; departmental ability to inquire and a bona fide belief defeated its use. Without such evidence, penalties against the entities and employee were not imposable.

Unauthorised occupation does not arise merely because a secured creditor's auction purchaser has not obtained transfer of leasehold rights or prior dues remain disputed. Possession obtained through a statutory public auction and sale certificate differs from trespass or clandestine occupation, so summary eviction from public premises is not justified on those grounds alone. Lease-transfer disputes and liabilities, including arrears attributable to a previous lessee, must be addressed separately, while legally enforceable dues must be recovered from the person or authority legally liable. The eviction order was set aside and the writ petition challenging that result was dismissed, without prejudice to lawful recovery remedies.

Money-laundering proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act concern alleged diversion of District Mineral Fund resources through the Chhattisgarh Seed Corporation. The investigation alleges siphoning of public funds by contractors in collusion with government officials and political executives. A businessman was identified as an alleged liaisoner and financial coordinator between public servants, district authorities and private vendors. Allegations also include receipt of commissions, acquisition of immovable assets from purported proceeds of crime, non-production of records, and contradictory statements during questioning.

GST audit powers under section 65 of the CGST Act are considered in relation to requests for complete ERP or Tally backups. The issue is whether an audit demand may extend to the entire accounting software backup or should be confined to audit-relevant sales, purchase, input tax credit, ledger and stock records in readable formats such as PDF or Excel. Clarification is also sought on precedent, circulars or departmental instructions concerning such requests.

The rupee appreciated against the US dollar, supported by domestic growth, controlled fiscal slippage, portfolio-related inflows and possible Reserve Bank of India intervention. Its gains were limited by weak equity markets, rising crude oil prices and a stronger dollar. External geopolitical tensions and hawkish US monetary signals remained potential pressures. Domestic indicators showed strong economic activity, while the current account deficit widened because of a higher merchandise trade deficit. Foreign portfolio inflows continued despite investors remaining net sellers during the year.

India's current account deficit widened in the first quarter of 2026-27 as the merchandise trade deficit increased. Higher net services receipts, increased personal transfer receipts and lower net primary-income outgo partly supported the external account. Financial-account movements included higher net foreign direct investment inflows, a shift in foreign portfolio investment from net inflow to net outflow, and lower net inflows through non-resident deposits and external commercial borrowings. Foreign exchange reserves declined on a balance-of-payments basis during the quarter.

Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits seizure for evidentiary purposes, while attachment or freezing to secure alleged proceeds of crime falls under Section 107 and requires a competent Magistrate's order and prescribed safeguards. Debit-freezing accounts of persons who are neither accused nor suspected, without material establishing complicity or recorded and communicated reasons, is arbitrary. Such blanket or disproportionate restrictions may impair the constitutional rights to livelihood and to carry on trade or business. The affected accounts were required to be defreezed, subject to lawful action based on positive and specific material under the prescribed procedure.

Section 100 confines second-appellate review to substantial questions of law, while permitting interference with factual findings founded on inadmissible material, disregard of material evidence, misconstruction of documents, or perversity. Reliance on an unproved photocopy to infer authority to alienate property raises a legal question because it is not legally admissible evidence. A notarised photocopy cannot establish a power of attorney unless the original's existence and execution, a recognised basis for non-production, and the copy's authenticity are proved before secondary evidence is admitted. Without that foundation, no presumption of due execution applies and conveyances based on the alleged authority do not bind the affected party.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, statutory appeals against attachment-confirmation orders must ordinarily be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction, unless compelling exceptional circumstances establish that the remedy is ineffective or inadequate. The statutory definition of proceeds of crime includes the value of tainted property, permitting proportionate attachment of other property of near or equivalent value when tainted assets are untraceable, unreachable or insufficient. Legitimately acquired and pre-offence property may therefore be attached as equivalent-value property, subject to tentative valuation, periodic review, proportionality, and ultimate confiscation limited to illicit gains.

Deduction under Section 80JJAA may be considered as a fresh appellate claim even where it was omitted from the return of income and Form 10DA was not filed with that return. Non-compliance with those procedural requirements alone does not resolve entitlement. The Assessing Officer must verify whether the substantive statutory conditions are fulfilled and allow the deduction if eligibility is established.

Reassessment initiated more than four years after an assessment under Section 143(3) requires the recorded reasons to establish the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. Where the recorded reasons contain no such allegation, the statutory jurisdictional condition under the first proviso to Section 147 is not met. The reasons must independently demonstrate this condition and cannot be supplemented or improved later. Reassessment proceedings commenced without this recorded allegation are invalid and liable to be quashed.