Competition Commission of India approved the proposed combination involving CPP Investment Board Private Holdings (4) Inc.'s acquisition of certain shareholding in Prestige Hospitality Ventures Limited. The target is an Indian public limited company within the Prestige group and owns and develops hospitality assets, including hotels and serviced apartments. The acquirer is incorporated in Canada and is managed by Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Merger-control approval covers the proposed internal JSW Group restructuring through amalgamation of BMM Ispat Limited into JSW Steel Limited. The amalgamation would convert the group's majority interest in BMM into full ownership and is intended to enhance operational, financial and organisational efficiencies through economies of scale, resource pooling and capital rationalisation. BMM is commercially integrated in the group's supply chain through intra-group sales and procurements.

Equality before law in public-service pay matters requires consideration of whether employees in the same cadre, governed by the same pay rules and affected by a common anomaly, are identically situated for revised pay-scale fixation. Similar relief should ordinarily follow, subject to verification of eligibility and exceptions such as delay, acquiescence, or party-specific judgments. Pay fixation and arrears require separate consideration, with continuing wrong principles and limitations remaining relevant. Authorities should assess entitlement and issue reasoned orders rather than compel repetitive litigation.

Differential income-tax-return due dates affect the period available to claim deductions for outstanding statutory sums under section 43B and to deposit TDS/TCS. Business taxpayers filing on a presumptive or non-audit basis face an earlier deadline than audit and transfer-pricing cases, creating a shorter payment window. A proposed corrective mechanism would permit an estimated deduction claim for qualifying payments expected by a later specified date, with a corresponding disallowance in the following year for amounts not paid.

Rule 110 separates electronic presentation from legal filing. A Provisional Acknowledgement records receipt of Form GST APL-05 and permits Registry scrutiny; under the Explanation to Rule 110(4), an appeal is treated as filed only upon a Final Acknowledgement carrying an appeal number. A pre-deposit required during scrutiny, if paid within the permitted defect-removal period and before Final Acknowledgement, meets the timing requirement for final filing. This mechanism permits cure of a pre-deposit deficiency but does not waive the payment condition.

Appointments to Group 'A' and 'B' posts in the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal are regulated through recruitment requirements covering pay levels, age limits, qualifications and disqualifications. Appeals involving an identical question of law across different Benches may be consolidated through a Transfer Appeal for taxpayers with multiple GSTINs linked to the same PAN. The portal process requires case selection, verification, document upload, checklist completion and final submission. Respondents may search the relevant case, upload and e-sign a reply, review it before submission, and obtain a receipt.

Creditors may approve, modify, or reject the repayment plan at the meeting. Each proposed modification requires the debtor's consent, and approval requires support exceeding three-fourths in value of creditors present, represented by proxy where applicable, and voting. The Adjudicating Authority considers the creditor-meeting report, or the resolution professional's report where no meeting occurs, and may approve, reject, or require reconsideration of the repayment plan.

Urgent listing of a GST appeal may precede ordinary Registry scrutiny where cancellation of registration causes continuing commercial prejudice and delay may make appellate recourse practically ineffective. Sufficient cause requires exceptional, supported circumstances showing ongoing harm, not merely a request for priority. Registry scrutiny remains applicable, but its sequence may be adjusted under procedural powers. Early listing concerns scheduling only and does not waive limitation, statutory pre-deposit, prescribed fee, maintainability, defects or other mandatory conditions governing the appeal.

Under the revised Customs prosecution threshold, a Magistrate may consider withdrawal of a pending complaint for outright smuggling of precious metals where the value falls below the revised limit. The earlier threshold was increased while the remaining circular terms continued. Prior issuance of a prosecution sanction does not, by itself, bar consideration of withdrawal under the revised threshold. The operative effect is to permit reconsideration of pending prosecutions that no longer meet the prescribed value criterion.

Section 63 provides the statutory mechanism to determine the tax liability of a person liable for GST registration who failed to obtain it. It requires a best-judgment assessment and an opportunity of hearing before an assessment order is made, and operates notwithstanding Section 74. For an unregistered person, assessment proceedings through notice in ASMT-14 are required before a tax-demand show-cause notice under Section 74 is pursued. Eligibility for any claimed exemption remains to be determined under the applicable GST enactment.

Writ jurisdiction is not available to challenge a portal-uploaded tax notice and consequential final order when the recipient received the notice but failed to use the prescribed statutory remedy. Objections that the electronic notice was merely a summary or lacked required particulars had to be raised through a timely reply before the final order. Unsubstantiated claims of not viewing the portal notice or order, despite accessing the portal for input tax credit purposes, do not excuse continued inaction. Rejection of the writ petition for failure to pursue the alternative statutory remedy therefore stands.

Chapter XVIII GST notices, orders and DRC summaries may be validly authenticated through DSC-based portal processes even where taxpayer-facing PDFs show no visible physical or digital signature. Electronic authentication through the officer's certificate, protected key, immutable record and hash value satisfies Information Technology Act requirements; Rule 26(3) does not impose a signature requirement on Chapter XVIII communications. Upload on the GST common portal constitutes valid service and starts limitation from the upload date, including communications placed under the Additional Notices and Orders tab after 16 January 2024. Portal communications must carry either a Document Identification Number or a verifiable Reference Number; absence of both invalidates the communication.

Electronically authenticated GST show-cause notices, adjudication orders and DRC summaries uploaded on the common portal remain valid even where taxpayer-facing PDFs display no physical or digital signature. Registered digital signature certificates, immutable electronic records, hash values and officer-certificate mapping satisfy electronic-authentication requirements; form signature fields cannot add to the Rules. Portal uploads constitute valid service and begin limitation; after the portal expressly identified the Additional Notices and Orders tab, taxpayers cannot claim ignorance of communications uploaded there, while challenges concerning earlier uploads remain open. GST communications may bear either a DIN or an independently verifi.....

Section 63 assessment of a person liable to GST who failed to obtain registration must precede tax-recovery proceedings under section 74. The proper officer must issue notice and make a best-judgment assessment for the relevant period after providing an opportunity of hearing. An educational institution may raise its exemption claim in those assessment proceedings. A recovery show-cause notice issued without first initiating the section 63 process was quashed, while the Department retained liberty to issue notice in ASMT-14 and pursue assessment; the exemption claim and other contentions remained open.

Revised Customs prosecution thresholds for precious-metal smuggling may extend to pending complaints if the goods' value is below the updated limit. The later circular changes only the monetary threshold and preserves the earlier circular's other conditions. Neither circular prohibits consideration of withdrawal after prosecution sanction has issued; the Magistrate retains discretion under the earlier framework to decide whether the prosecution should continue. Where withdrawal was rejected solely because sanction had issued, reconsideration under the applicable circulars is required.

Regular bail in a commercial-quantity narcotics prosecution remained subject to the twin conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, despite prolonged incarceration. More than three and a half years of custody, minimal trial progress, first-time-offender status, and the absence of credible material linking the accused to the contraband beyond presence in a vehicle supported satisfaction of those conditions. The presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 was rebuttable. Regular bail was granted.

International commercial arbitral awards are subject to limited public-policy review, and patent illegality is unavailable. Prior service by arbitrators in related specialised maritime proceedings does not itself create justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality without material indicating closed-mindedness, partiality, or lack of objective judgment. A known challenge to an arbitrator's appointment must be raised within the prescribed period or is waived. Clause 62, read with the agreement and its force-majeure mechanism, does not permit a charterer to terminate for its own failure to issue shipment nominations. Damages based on the contractual-versus-spot freight differential for affected tonnage, after mitigation notice, and interest are sustainable where they rationally measure contractual loss.

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits additional evidence at any stage where it is material and necessary for a just decision. The stage of proceedings, including closure of the complainant's evidence, does not itself prevent admission of relevant documents. An invoice and related payment records directly connected with a payment raised in the defence may be produced to clarify whether that payment concerned the liability in issue. Such production is distinguishable from filling a lacuna in the original case. The documents may be placed on record where the opposing party receives a full opportunity to challenge their admissibility, authenticity and evidentiary value.

Professional disciplinary proceedings for other misconduct may continue once a complaint has been filed and cannot be withdrawn. Pending proceedings remain governed by the pre-amendment legal framework. Judicial intervention under Article 226 is limited, while removal from the Register of Members may serve as a disciplinary sanction. Review requires grounds warranting reconsideration; where no such grounds are established, the review petition is dismissed.

Accepted self-assessed quarterly VAT returns require refund of excess tax after adjustment of outstanding dues under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Where no default assessment, audit, or other applicable statutory proceeding has begun and no outstanding demand exists, the unadjusted refund remains payable; reassessment provisions do not govern the refund application. Allegations that transactions are paper transactions do not by themselves permit rejection under the anti-avoidance provision. That provision requires an identified arrangement intended to defeat the Act, supported by inquiry or investigation and declared void. Accordingly, unsubstantiated collusion allegations cannot justify withholding the statutory refund.