Designation of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, appoints the Computer Forensic Division of the Goa Forensic Science Laboratory as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India. Its authorised forensic scope covers computer (media) forensics, excluding floppy disk drive examination, and mobile devices forensics.

Order XXI Rules 97-101 require executing courts to determine all relevant disputes between decree-holders and third-party occupants, including title, interest, whether occupants are bound by the decree, and alleged fraud or collusion. A party seeking to dispossess settled occupants must establish better title. Preliminary decrees, possession orders, execution steps, bailiff reports, and final partition decrees founded on suppressed material facts, fraud, or an order already set aside are void and unenforceable against unimpleaded occupants. Pre-1948 pattadari rights may be established through revenue and historical title records, supporting restoration of possession. An appellate decision involving a disqualified judge is coram non judice, cannot create res judicata, and cannot sustain possession claims.

Digital Forensic Laboratory, Cyber Defence Center, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar Campus, Gujarat, is designated as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its authorised scope covers computer (media) forensics, excluding floppy disk drive examination, and mobile devices forensics.

Transfer-pricing comparability under the Transactional Net Margin Method requires exclusion of manufacturing entities outside the tested party's turnover range where size materially affects margins, and any adjustment must be limited to international transactions between associated enterprises. Cash-profit indicators may be used where depreciation policies materially differ, subject to verification of their effect on margins. Conversion of an established external borrowing into share capital by book entry, without fresh cash receipt, is not unexplained cash credit when creditor identity, source and loan genuineness are established. Information technology and corporate service fees require verification of supporting evidence. Employee PF/ESI contributions are deductible only if paid by the due date under the relevant enactment, subject to payment verification.

Under the India-Germany treaty, a permanent establishment must be determined separately for each project; personnel presence below the stipulated six-month period and lack of project-office involvement support taxation of relevant consultancy receipts as fees for technical services rather than as profits attributable to a permanent establishment. Receipts under the existing project remained subject to its stated treaty treatment, while projects lacking complete agreements and annexures required fresh document-based verification. The force-of-attraction rule cannot attribute receipts from independent contracts to an existing permanent establishment without its involvement and an effective connection to those transactions. Interest challenges under sections 234A, 234B and 234C succeeded on the established position for identical facts.

Dependent agent permanent establishment under Article 5(5) requires proof that an Indian person has authority to negotiate and enter contracts for the foreign enterprise and habitually exercises that authority. Customer liaison, account management, administrative support, communication of pre-approved terms, document routing, and assistance with online standard-form contracting fall short unless Indian personnel substantively determine essential terms or routinely bring negotiations to a binding commercial conclusion. Formal offshore execution is not decisive where local personnel effectively control material negotiations. Corporate association, economic dependence, and independent-agent considerations cannot replace proof of the positive authority and habitual-exercise requirements.

Central Government designates the Forensics Science Department, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India. Its authorised scope covers computer (media) forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile devices forensics. The Department may examine electronic evidence within these specified technical domains, while floppy disk drive examination remains outside the computer-media forensic scope.

Customs show-cause jurisdiction requires both appointment as an officer of customs and function-specific assignment as the proper officer. Assessment under Section 17 and recovery under Section 28 are distinct functions; the original assessing officer need not alone issue a recovery notice. Retrospective validation of qualifying officers' proper-officer status applies independently of the preserved historical recovery regime. Confiscation and penalty proceedings require written grounds, prescribed prior approval, representation, and hearing. Where jurisdiction exists, disputed facts, evidence, limitation, and procedural compliance ordinarily require determination through adjudication.

Cyber Forensic Laboratory, Army Cyber Group, Directorate General of Information Systems, is designated as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its authorised scope within India covers computer media forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile-device forensics. The earlier gazette instrument issued on 4 September 2018 is rescinded.

Pre-offence property is ordinarily not directly derived from later scheduled-offence activity, but may be provisionally attached as equivalent value where actual proceeds are unavailable. Such attachment requires identification and reasoned valuation of the alleged proceeds, material showing their unavailability, and recorded reasons to believe that non-attachment risks concealment, transfer, or other frustration of confiscation. A later use of illicit funds to repay loans, construction borrowing, or secured obligations may separately establish a direct or indirect nexus. Section 24 presumptions do not replace the foundational requirements for attachment.

Where disciplinary misconduct concerns one CIRP, cross-assignment suspension requires a proportionate link to the pleaded charge, supporting material and hearing afforded. Section 220(2) permits disciplinary sanctions after hearing, while Regulation 13(7) requires intimation to Committees of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority. On the prima facie construction applied, intimation informs each Committee's decision on continuation or replacement rather than automatically removing the professional from unrelated ongoing assignments. The Board's regulatory role and the Committee's replacement power remain distinct but connected.

Rule 26(3) makes electronic issuance and authentication by digital signature, e-signature, or a notified verification mode cumulative conditions for GST notices and orders. A portal upload concerns service, while a system-generated reference number, DRC summary, or DIN performs tracking or procedural functions; none independently establishes the authorised officer's authentication. Section 169 governs service rather than validity, and Section 160 does not ordinarily cure a defect preventing attribution of the instrument to the competent officer. DRC-01 cannot replace the statutory notice, and DRC-07 supports recovery only upon a valid order.

Central Government designates the Cyber Forensics Laboratory, Navy Cyber Group, Naval Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy), as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its authorised scope is limited to computer-media forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile-device forensics; the designation rescinds the earlier gazette instrument issued in 2022.

Bribery allegations concern a CGST Superintendent accused of demanding a monthly undue advantage from a scrap-business proprietor in exchange for not intercepting scrap vehicles or obstructing the business. A criminal case was registered, and a trap operation resulted in the Superintendent being apprehended while allegedly accepting the demanded undue advantage. Searches recovered cash and immovable-property documents, and the investigation remains ongoing.

Computer resources supporting the Core Banking Solution, Real Time Gross Settlement and Unified Payments Interface Switch, along with associated dependencies, are designated as protected systems under section 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Access is confined to bank employees, authorised service-provider or vendor personnel requiring need-based access, and specified consultants, regulators, government officials, auditors and stakeholders granted written case-by-case authorisation. The designation takes effect upon publication in the Official Gazette.

Section 75(7) bars confirmation of a demand exceeding the scope of the show cause notice. Where a notice does not propose a penalty, an adjudicating authority cannot impose one in the final order; such confirmation exceeds jurisdiction. An adjudication order imposing an unnotified penalty was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Payment of the prescribed appellate pre-deposit and filing of an appeal before the Tribunal trigger a deemed stay of recovery of the balance disputed GST demand under section 112(9), read with the CBIC Circular. During that statutory stay, net eligible GST refunds cannot be appropriated against the stayed demands. Appropriation of refunds for July to September 2023 against demands for financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20 was therefore impermissible, requiring restoration of the net eligible refund while the pending appeals proceed independently on merits.

GST audit commencement under the Explanation to Section 65(4) is reckoned from the later of record furnishing and on-site institution at the registered person's business premises. An audit following prior production of records therefore remains within time if completed within the statutory period measured from on-site commencement. Rule 101(4) requires the registered person to receive an opportunity to object to discrepancies and have those objections considered before audit findings are finalised. Audit observations seeking a response are not final findings and cannot properly support a show cause notice before that procedure is completed. Objections must be received and considered before fresh finalisation of the audit.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure remains available under section 54(3) where accumulation results from higher tax on certain inputs than on output supplies. Circular No. 135/05/2020 does not bar such a claim merely because one principal input and the output supply attract the same tax rate. The refund application must be considered under section 54(3), and time spent pursuing writ proceedings is excluded when calculating the limitation period.

First Appellate Authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit for appeals against GST registration cancellation. Constitutional directions tailored to individual cases cannot enlarge statutory appellate jurisdiction or override an express limitation. The Department's restoration of cancelled registrations after implementing appellate orders altered taxpayers' legal and commercial positions; its challenges to those orders therefore became academic, futile, infructuous and not maintainable, as no effective relief could be granted without addressing the consequences of restoration.