Regular bail in alleged fraudulent input tax credit cases was considered appropriate where the prosecution relied mainly on electronic and documentary material already appended to the complaint, reducing the risk of tampering or witness influence. The notes state that the allegations required trial scrutiny, while the offences carried a maximum five-year sentence; the petitioners had substantial custody, no criminal antecedents, and social roots. Referring to Supreme Court guidance where investigation was complete and trial delay was likely, the HC granted regular bail subject to bonds, sureties, and conditions ensuring attendance and non-interference with the trial.

Uploading a GST show-cause notice or adjudication order only in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the Common Portal is not sufficient service unless the taxpayer acknowledges receipt or responds. The notes state that the retrospective amendment on Common Portal functions does not change this position because the GST Rules do not prescribe portal upload as a mode of service for such notices or orders. If no reply was filed and an ex parte order followed, proceedings must be restored to the notice stage. If an order followed a contested proceeding but was only uploaded on the portal, the limitation period for appeal does not commence.

Transitional CENVAT credit reflected as an undisputed closing balance under the erstwhile service tax regime cannot be reassessed or denied through CGST proceedings merely because its original availment is alleged to have been inadmissible. The notes explain that recovery for wrongful pre-GST CENVAT credit must proceed under the saved provisions of the erstwhile law, not under the CGST Act. They further address transition of Krishi Kalyan Cess credit through TRAN-1, noting the relevance of unoperationalised transitional explanations and applicable High Court guidance. VAT credit on stock-in-trade is described as transitionable where required particulars were furnished and no specific adverse material supports denial. Penalty based solely on TRAN-1 disclosures is also treated as unjustified.

Section 171(1) requires suppliers to pass additional input tax credit to recipients through a commensurate reduction in price. In a real-estate project, additional GST credit may be determined against available pre-GST credit using project records and apportioned by saleable area; failure to prove that the resulting benefit reached eligible homebuyers supports a finding of profiteering. A notification stopping acceptance of fresh anti-profiteering requests operates prospectively and does not, without express provision, terminate pending investigations or adjudications. The pendency of a constitutional challenge does not suspend application of the prevailing law unless a stay order covers the provision or proceedings. Applicable interest may accompany quantified benefit, while penalty depends on whether the penalty provision was in force during the contravention period.

Internal comparable pricing for captive power transfers was accepted where the same consuming units bought electricity from State distribution companies in the same market and period, resulting in deletion of transfer-pricing adjustments. Exempt-income disallowance was confined to dividend-yielding investments, and MAT adjustments required an independent determination of expenditure from the accounts. Expansion-related operating costs remained revenue expenditure unless directly attributable to acquiring or installing capital assets. Captive rail systems qualified as infrastructure facilities for section 80-IA, while common costs required expenditure-based allocation supported by a nexus. Incentives linked to capital investment and expansio.....

For a non-resident bank, overseas data-processing costs qualify as head office expenditure only where incurred outside India, constituting executive or general administration, and falling within the statutory definition; factual examination of those conditions was required. NRI desk expenditure remained disallowed. Where interest-free funds exceeded investments in exempt securities, investments were presumed funded from those sources, supporting exemption without interest disallowance. Bad-debt provision deduction must be computed before the head office expenditure deduction because it is not excluded from adjusted total income. Interest between an Indian branch and its head office or overseas branches is not taxable in India, so withholding-based disallowance does not apply; however, a deductor cannot obtain credit or refund of tax deducted absent statutory authority.

Interest earned by a co-operative credit society on investments with other co-operative banks is discussed as qualifying for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), alternatively to the claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The text states that section 80P(4), which excludes co-operative banks from the deduction, does not remove the investing society's entitlement where the recipient bank remains a co-operative society. It further notes reliance on jurisdictional Tribunal decisions and preference for the interpretation favourable to the assessee where non-jurisdictional High Court views conflict. The stated result is deletion of the disallowance and allowance of deduction for both assessment years.

Specific and unambiguous charges are required in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The note explains that a penalty notice must clearly identify whether the allegation concerns concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars; an Assessing Officer cannot initiate proceedings on one limb and impose penalty on the other. Where the notice lacks a definite charge or the penalty order changes the stated basis, the notice and consequential penalty are unsustainable. On the facts described, the penalty order was quashed and the merits of the penalty were not examined.

Audited financial statements were treated as the reliable basis for determining closing work-in-progress where unaudited tally-generated data showed a difference caused by adding, rather than excluding, opening work-in-progress. As the audited accounts correctly reflected the brought-forward opening balance and the relevant year's closing work-in-progress, no discrepancy remained to support an addition based solely on unaudited data. The discussion states that the addition for the alleged difference in closing work-in-progress, as well as the stock-in-trade difference, was deleted.

Recording reasons before issuing a reassessment notice and obtaining sanction based on independent application of mind are jurisdictional requirements. The note explains that undated recorded reasons and an undated sanction are invalid where the sanctioning authority merely writes "yes" or "approved" on a prescribed proforma without demonstrating consideration of the material. Such mechanical approval vitiates the reassessment proceedings. On these facts, the reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed as bad in law, while other grounds became academic.

Section 127C(5) requires the Settlement Commission to provide a settlement applicant an opportunity to address a jurisdictional Commissioner's report before relying on it to enhance customs duty liability. Non-supply of the report breached that statutory requirement and principles of natural justice, requiring the settlement order to be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration. Separate settlement applications arising from the same seized imported goods were intrinsically connected and required a consistent approach. The differing treatment of the Revenue report lacked a discernible basis; therefore, the related subsequent order was also quashed and remanded, with all merits left open.

Customs classification of exported scaffolding components was governed by binding High Court precedent recognising classification under the specific headings for nuts, bolts, washers, plastic caps, clamps and hand tools, rather than the general scaffolding heading. The article states that substantially identical classification disputes had already attained finality and were not disputed by Revenue. It reports that the show cause notice alleging misclassification could therefore not be sustained, was quashed, and duty drawback withheld solely because of that notice, together with the export promotional copy, was directed to be released within the stipulated period.

Refund of special additional duty was not subject to the one-year limitation inserted by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. because Section 27 of the Customs Act did not cover such duty paid on import. The article notes that imposing a limitation period from the date of duty payment through an amended exemption notification would affect the substantive refund right without statutory amendment. Following the Larger Bench ruling in Ambey Sales, the High Court found the Tribunal justified in allowing the refund claims and held that no substantial question of law arose. The revenue appeals were dismissed.

An authorised courier was not liable for regulatory action or penalty for abetment of smuggling where no evidence established its involvement in, or knowledge of, gold concealed in consignment cartons. The concealment was detectable only by X-ray examination upon arrival, while the courier acted bona fide and exercised due diligence. Proceedings for penalty relating to the contraband had also been dropped. The Tribunal sustained the order dropping proceedings against the courier and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

An amount paid at import remains a refundable deposit where the bill of entry is unfinalised, no out-of-charge order for home consumption is issued, and the amount is not appropriated as customs duty. The imported pillow and duvet goods failed statutory quarantine requirements and were destroyed before clearance. As redemption fine and penalty were separately imposed and paid for the goods-related illegality, the pre-clearance deposit could not be retained as duty. The refund denial was set aside, and refund was granted with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Cross-objections under section 129A(4) may challenge any part of an appealed order and are to be disposed of as an appeal; the article notes that the preliminary objection to their scope was overruled. It reports that declared import values could not be rejected without evidence that a related-party relationship influenced price, that proforma invoices reflected additional consideration, or that remittances exceeded declared values. Revised retail sale price demands were described as unsupported because relevant invoices were not supplied and no statutory post-import redetermination mechanism existed. A therapeutic transdermal patch was treated as a medicament rather than a skin-care product. The article further notes that redemption fine was unavailable where goods were unavailable and confiscation grounds failed.

Preferential customs duty benefit may remain available where revised or rectified Certificates of Origin are submitted within the prescribed period and the goods' origin and certificate authenticity are undisputed. The discussion states that origin rules permit replacement of erroneous certificates and retrospective issuance, and that procedural discrepancies should be read harmoniously with domestic verification requirements rather than extinguish substantive treaty benefits. It also notes that subsequent submission of a valid certificate can cure format-related defects, including under third-party invoicing arrangements, without altering origin, value or goods description. On the stated facts, denial of concessional duty was treated as unsustainable and the related duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside.

Unadjudicated assertions in pleadings filed before the Supreme Court do not establish the legal correctness of those assertions or bind other courts on the statute governing a company. The Court-of-Record status under Article 129 confirms the record of what was asserted, while binding force under Article 141 arises only from law declared by the Supreme Court. The applicable company-law regime must be determined from the statutory framework and the company's objects, activities and operational circumstances. The notes also explain that mandamus ordinarily requires a prior distinct demand to the statutory authority and its refusal or neglect; without those prerequisites, mandamus cannot issue.

Section 34 treats continuation of the resolution professional as liquidator as the default position, while replacement is limited to specified statutory grounds. A Committee of Creditors' unanimous recommendation for a liquidator is material and requires consideration; a general bar on appointing an erstwhile interim or resolution professional is not supported where the underlying facts do not apply. Appointment also requires verification of a valid and subsisting Authorisation for Assignment before charge is assumed. Routine liquidation steps taken by an incumbent may remain effective, while the outgoing liquidator may receive costs and fees for work genuinely performed.

Vicarious liability under FEMA arises where a person is in charge of and responsible for the company's business; office alone does not establish that responsibility. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer's authority to sign export-related, import and bank-account documents established assigned responsibility for export transactions, making him liable for neglect in the company's non-realisation of export proceeds, although consent or connivance was not proved. FEMA penalties are civil and may apply to technical or procedural contraventions without proving mens rea. The Tribunal sustained liability for neglect but limited the penalty to the pre-deposit already made and deleted the balance.