Writ of mandamus was invoked under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 261 and 265 to seek enforcement of statutory duties concerning alleged tax evasion. The allegations relied on an FIR, sworn testimony before a Family Court, affidavits concerning declared assets, and purported unaccounted cash transactions. The central legal issue concerns the scope of writ jurisdiction and judicial restraint where allegations remain disputed, alongside constitutional claims relating to equality, free expression, personal liberty, inter-State recognition, and taxation only by authority of law.

Order giving effect to an appellate direction could not stand where the expressly contemplated reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee. Earlier High Court directions had also required a hearing. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate-effect order and the impugned High Court judgment, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter after hearing the assessee and keeping all contentions open.

Section 80IB(10) deduction eligibility depends on calculating the prescribed 1,000 sq. ft. limit through the unit's built-up area. The relevant measurement concerns habitable area and inner measurements at floor level, while requiring consideration of whether common areas, projections and balconies are included or excluded. These components determine whether a residential unit satisfies the area condition for the housing-project deduction.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit under an inverted duty structure is not conditional on the claimant being a manufacturer rather than a trader. A circular addressing accumulation arising from a GST-rate reduction on the same goods does not bar a claim where no such rate reduction occurred merely because input and output classifications overlap. Statutory refund eligibility and the Rule 89(5) formula require computation using period-specific data. Verification of eligible inputs, exclusion of ineligible credit, invoice matching and zero-rated supplies supports the claim where no material displaces the verification findings. Refunds remain sustainable when statutory conditions and the prescribed formula are met.

Personal hearing requirements for GST liability orders under Section 75(4) were central to the challenge. The factual circumstances were not shown to differ from those considered in an earlier ruling on the same requirement. The writ petition was therefore decided in accordance with that earlier decision, addressing whether the impugned GST liability order complied with the statutory personal-hearing requirement.

Statutory appellate remedies against cancellation of registration and rejection of revocation take priority over writ jurisdiction where disputed factual questions require determination. Although the cancellation order was defectively drafted and undated, its service date was to be treated as the relevant date for filing an appeal. The factual dispute concerning production of electronic devices remained open for examination by the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Bail was directed after the charge-sheet had been filed, as no further custodial interrogation was required. Continued custody for nearly three months, coupled with the absence of stated criminal antecedents, supported release. The petitioner was therefore released on bail pending proceedings, and the special leave petition was disposed of on the stated facts.

Anticipatory bail may be granted where investigation has concluded, a charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed, and trial is underway, because custodial interrogation is no longer required. Bail remains subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer, the accused's continued cooperation, and appearance before the jurisdictional court. The relevant consideration is the absence of any continuing investigative need for custody after the matter has progressed to trial.

Regular bail in proceedings alleging offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was granted after weighing parity with co-accused already released on bail, the period of incarceration undergone, and the trial's stage. Release remained subject to terms and conditions fixed by the concerned Trial Court, balancing the accused's liberty against the requirements of the pending criminal proceedings.

Sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay in a revenue income-tax appeal requires a credible explanation demonstrating bona fides and due diligence. Liberal construction of the limitation standard does not excuse negligence, inaction, departmental workload, difficulty locating records, or unexplained delay after appeal papers are finalised. The duration of delay may be relevant, but the adequacy of the explanation remains decisive. Where substantial delay persists even after exclusion of a limitation extension and the applicant provides only excuses, condonation is unavailable. Failure to establish sufficient cause results in dismissal of the condonation application and the appeal as time-barred.

Failure to verify tax deduction at source compliance on remuneration and hire expenses incurred for motion-picture production can render an assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. The claimed expenditure required examination of the extent of TDS deduction and deposit, while an assertion that substantial expenditure represented reimbursements required supporting records and evidence. In the absence of such verification, revisional intervention and a fresh assessment were warranted. The TDS-related expense issue was to be reconsidered after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, framing of charges and commencement of trial remove the need for custodial interrogation, supporting grant of anticipatory bail. Bail may be granted subject to conditions set by the Investigating Officer, continued cooperation with the investigation and furnishing bail bonds before the jurisdictional court. On these grounds, the refusal of anticipatory bail was set aside and anticipatory bail was granted.

Bail may be granted after filing of a charge-sheet where no further custodial interrogation is required. In allegations concerning unrecorded dry-fruit transactions and issuance of tax invoices, release on bail was directed subject to conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court. The accused was also required to appear before that court within two weeks. The material highlights completion of investigation and absence of a continuing custodial need as relevant considerations for post-charge-sheet bail.

Availability of a statutory appellate remedy against GST registration cancellation and rejection of revocation ordinarily precludes adjudication of factual disputes in writ jurisdiction. Appeals lay against both orders; therefore, factual contentions remained open for determination by the appellate authority. Where the revocation-rejection order was undated but served on 22 August 2026, the service date was directed to be treated as the order date for pursuing the appellate remedy. The taxpayer was permitted to file appeals against both orders within two weeks, for expeditious disposal.

Accumulated input tax credit refunds under an inverted duty structure depend on the tax rates applicable to supplies, not on whether the registered person is a manufacturer or trader. A circular addressing accumulation caused by a GST rate reduction on the same goods does not exclude refunds for finished apparel supplied at an unchanged rate; higher-taxed inputs may remain eligible under the prescribed formula. Refunds must be computed tax-period-wise, and period-specific calculation satisfies that requirement. Verification must address ineligible credit, invoice reconciliation and credit relating to zero-rated supplies; unsupported objections do not displace findings based on examined records. The refund claims were sustained and the Revenue appeals dismissed.

Rule 29 compliance for additional evidence required fresh examination where an affidavit accompanying Paper Book No. II-A expressly sought permission and the materials were prima facie available in the Tribunal's records. The dismissal of the related rectification application was partly set aside and remitted for determining whether the paper book had been properly filed under Rule 29, whether its contents were relevant to the appeal, and any consequential relief. Findings concerning the other paper book and remaining grounds remained undisturbed.

Under reassessment procedure, a scrutiny notice must be issued only after the taxpayer files a return in response to a reopening notice. Issuing the scrutiny notice before that return is filed makes the notice invalid and cannot cure the statutory defect. Without a valid scrutiny notice, the reassessment order is invalid. Reassessment orders founded on prematurely issued scrutiny notices are therefore liable to be set aside, and appeals challenging their invalidation fail where no further question of law arises.

Rule 68B's amended recovery period applies only where the original limitation period remained alive when the amendment took effect; recovery for 2007-08 and 2008-09 was therefore barred, while proceedings for 2009-10 to 2011-12 remained timely. Service on the defaulting firm sufficed for sale of its assets, particularly where partners received copies and participated; individual notice is required where recovery targets a partner's personal assets. Auction valuation was not defective because sale prices exceeded guideline and partner-declared market values, and revised reserve prices alone showed no undervaluation. Third-party funding of demand drafts did not invalidate compliant auction payments. The recovery auction was confirmed and the sale certificate was to issue to the purchaser.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot rest on a disallowance of business interest on secured promissory notes once the underlying quantum disallowance has been reversed. Interest on those notes was treated as incurred for business purposes and therefore not deductible only on an unsustainable basis. The Tribunal's deletion of penalty was upheld because the issue was initially debatable and the quantum position later attained finality. With no surviving basis for the disallowance, the penalty could not continue, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Customs-duty refund limitation for provisionally assessed duty runs from communication of the final assessment order to the person entitled to claim refund, rather than from the order's date. A limitation period cannot begin before the claimant has actual or constructive knowledge of the order creating the remedy. Revenue must establish service through the prescribed statutory mode; mere despatch without proof of delivery is insufficient. In the absence of Revenue evidence of despatch or delivery, and with unrebutted postal evidence of receipt, the refund claim was treated as filed within the one-year period and remained eligible for consideration.