On the occasion of National Anti-Drug Addiction Day and the Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN) Rajasthan Unit organised a series of Awareness Programmes in opium cultivation areas to sensitise cultivators and local communities about the harmful effects of drug abuse and promote the message of a drug-free India. An awareness session on drug abuse and its adverse effects was organised at the University of Kota under Operation Yuva Raksha by Central Bureau of ... ... ...

NABKISAN Finance Limited, a subsidiary of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), on 1st October 2026 listed India's first Social Bond dedicated exclusively to the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector on the National Stock Exchange (NSE), Mumbai. The Social Bond issue witnessed robust investor participation and was oversubscribed 1.8 times, enabling NABKISAN to raise Rs.180 crore. The five-year bond carries a coupon rate of 8.10%, matures in September 203... ... ...

High-speed chase, cocaine concealed in chocolate tubes and heroin intercepted from passenger in car-pooling taxi mark intelligence-led operations across the country Continuing its sustained crackdown on illicit drug trafficking, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has seized cumulative quantity of 15.59 kg dangerous contraband drugs, Amphetamine, Cocaine and Heroin, in three separate intelligence-led operations conducted on 29-30.09.2026. Five persons have been arrested under the pr... ... ...

Revenue appeals in GST matters are subject to CBIC monetary thresholds intended to restrict unnecessary litigation. Appeals should generally be pursued only where the stipulated amount is exceeded or the issue has substantial, recurring or cascading revenue consequences. The residual "any other issue" ground requires prudent and limited use. Non-filing under the monetary-limit policy neither constitutes acquiescence nor gives the unappealed matter precedent value. Compliance with these limits is presented as a preliminary objection to sub-threshold departmental appeals.

Input tax credit under Section 17(5)(d) depends first on whether capital infrastructure is immovable property, not on size, weight, or mere fastening to earth. Fastening for alignment, vibration control, balance, or safety does not alone make modular apparatus immovable. Equipment that can be unfastened, dismantled, and relocated without structural damage or loss of commercial identity may remain movable goods, so the threshold for the credit block is not met and ITC is considered under Section 16(1).

Import and export prohibitions may be absolute or conditional, with conditions capable of being required before or after clearance. Prohibited goods include goods whose import or export is barred under the Customs Act or another law in force, while restricted goods require applicable licences, authorisations, permits, or clearances and compliance with attached conditions. Contravention may lead to detention, seizure, confiscation, monetary penalties, redemption fine where permitted, licence action, prosecution, and imprisonment in serious cases.

Payment of the full invoice value, including GST, to the supplier is distinct from payment of that tax to the Government and does not by itself establish the latter. Supplier-side non-payment, retrospective cancellation of registration, or an alert cannot independently establish that the purchaser's credit is inadmissible. The proper officer must identify the disputed invoices and precise default, disclose relied-upon material, examine the purchaser's evidence of actual supply, consider supplier-side recovery, and pass a reasoned order under the period-specific statutory framework.

Condonation of delay in a Revenue income-tax appeal was granted for a 341-day delay attributed to an inter-state transfer of jurisdiction, reconciliation of judicial records, and multi-level administrative scrutiny. Applying a pragmatic approach to sufficient cause, the delay was treated as bona fide despite objections that government litigation receives no privileged limitation treatment. The article emphasises that respondents should test every stage of delay through documentary proof, particularly where electronic records and e-filing reduce the force of routine file-movement explanations.

Assessing Officers must follow Income Tax Appellate Tribunal determinations unless their operation has been suspended by a competent court. Where the Tribunal has determined that a non-resident has no permanent establishment in India and that particular fees are not taxable, the payer cannot be treated as in default for failure to withhold tax. The withholding obligation arises only where payments are chargeable to tax in India.

Additional court-fee liability on a State GST appeal may operate separately from the statutory pre-deposit required under Section 107. The fee must be supported by the applicable State legislation and notification in force when the appeal was filed; a later notification cannot ordinarily impose a new liability retrospectively. Non-payment of a lawful court fee is a curable procedural defect and should be addressed before merits review. Where the first appellate authority has not considered the tax dispute, substantive issues should ordinarily remain for first-appellate determination after payment and a proper hearing.

Section 76 requires amounts collected as tax to be remitted to the Government but sets no deadline for issuing a show cause notice, although an order must follow within one year of notice. The resulting reasonable-period inquiry is fact-dependent and can be examined in statutory appeal. Where detailed adjudication follows a taxpayer's reply and hearing, the alternative statutory remedy ordinarily remains the appropriate forum; writ intervention despite an available appeal is exceptional.

Taxability must be determined before input tax credit eligibility. A blocked-credit inquiry presupposes a taxable inward supply on which tax has been lawfully charged. Where an assignment is outside the charge of GST, denial or reversal of input tax credit cannot retain the economic burden of an invalid levy. The restriction on credit for construction of immovable property applies only where expenditure has a clear nexus with construction-related activity on the taxable person's own account. Acquisition of existing leasehold rights without construction does not satisfy that requirement merely because the rights concern land.

Bank merger transfers the merged bank's assets, liabilities and customer accounts to the successor bank, so a cheque drawn on that account does not become invalid merely because the original bank ceases to exist. An endorsement that no such bank exists is insufficient, by itself, to negate the cheque where the successor bank has taken over the account. Allegations that the cheque was misplaced or the account closed require proof at trial and do not alone preclude proceedings for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Transfer of the right to use goods requires the transferee to receive possession and effective control. Hiring privately owned buses to a State transport undertaking did not meet that test where owners remained responsible for operating and maintaining the vehicles, supplied drivers, bore statutory and accident-related liabilities, and retained physical control. The undertaking's authority to prescribe routes and schedules regulated service performance but did not confer exclusive possession or control. The arrangement operated as a licence or transport service arrangement, not a deemed sale taxable under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act.

Electricity generated from bagasse and cleared outside the factory does not trigger the payment obligation under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Bagasse, being agricultural waste or residue rather than an outcome of manufacture, falls outside the scope of Rule 6. Accordingly, electricity generated from bagasse, including electricity wheeled to a State electricity distribution authority, is not subject to payment of 6% of its value.

CENVAT credit for service tax paid on Business Support Services received from a group company is available where common corporate and operational support has a direct nexus with manufacturing. Allocation of the provider's expenses among group entities without an independent profit element does not alter the taxable character or value of invoiced services where tax has been paid and accepted. Credit should not be denied at the recipient's end by recharacterising those services while the provider's tax assessment remains unrevised. On that basis, disallowance of credit and consequential demand and penalty are unsustainable.

A mandatory appellate pre-deposit under Section 35F is not excise duty, so a duplicate deposit need not be claimed through the Section 11B refund procedure, which governs refunds of duty and related interest. Where duplicate credit is admitted and no bona fide basis exists for withholding it, the amount is refundable with interest at 12% per annum from the second receipt until payment, together with litigation costs.

Service tax paid under reverse charge on exempt goods transport agency services, despite no tax liability, is treated as a revenue deposit made under a mistake of law rather than duty. The amount falls outside the statutory duty-refund mechanism and must be refunded; retaining it lacks constitutional authority. As the payment is a deposit, the statutory interest regime for duty refunds does not apply. Compensatory interest at 12% per annum is payable from each deposit date until refund.

Provisional attachment, seizure, retention and freezing measures must rest on the material, reasons to believe, complaint and application that originally grounded them. Later FIRs, an ECIR addendum or a subsequent prosecution complaint cannot retrospectively validate measures founded solely on an original FIR; they require an independent statutory basis. Quashing the original FIR does not itself eliminate every predicate offence where subsequent FIRs disclose such offences. Yet those FIRs cannot support confirmation of challenged measures unless they formed part of the original statutory foundation.

Under the PMLA provisional-attachment regime, a developer relying on a joint development agreement must establish enforceable title and payment of consideration for the landowner's share before seeking release or substitution of attached land. Absence of a registered sale deed, proof of payment, or crystallised rights through legal proceedings left the developer with only an uncrystallised contractual interest. Transfers to plot purchasers and insufficient details of unsold plots further prevented proof of a subsisting proprietary share. The attachment therefore remained unaffected.