Where a document called for is not produced after notice to produce, the Court must presume it was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law. This presumption concerns the formal validity of the unproduced document, including due execution and satisfaction of legal requirements relating to attestation and stamping.

Courts may presume that an electronic message forwarded by its originator through an electronic mail server to its apparent addressee corresponds with the message entered into the originator's computer for transmission. The presumption does not establish the identity of the person who sent the message. "Originator" and "addressee" carry their assigned meanings under information-technology law.

Presumption as to telegraphic messages permits the Court to presume that a message forwarded from a telegraph office to its apparent addressee corresponds with the message delivered for transmission at the stated originating office. No presumption may be drawn regarding the identity of the person who delivered the message for transmission.

Section 87 permits the Court to presume that books referred to for information on public or general interest, and published maps or charts produced for inspection where their statements are relevant facts, were written and published by the person and at the time and place each purports to have been written or published.

Input tax credit claimed in FORM GSTR-3B but absent from FORM GSTR-2A for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 requires invoice-wise verification of statutory eligibility. The claimant must establish possession of valid tax documents, receipt of supplies, payment to the supplier, compliance with reversal requirements, and observance of the credit time limit. Supplier tax payment must be supported by a UDIN-backed Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant certificate above the prescribed discrepancy threshold, or by a supplier certificate where the discrepancy is within that threshold. The mechanism is confined to bona fide reporting errors and ongoing matters.

Section 86 permits a court to presume that a document presented as a certified copy of a judicial record from a country outside India is genuine and accurate. The presumption applies where the copy appears certified in a manner recognised as commonly used in that country for judicial-record copies. A Political Agent for a territory or place outside India is deemed to be a Central Government representative for this purpose.

Electronic Signature Certificate presumption requires the Court to treat information in an accepted Electronic Signature Certificate as correct unless the contrary is proved. Unverified subscriber information is excluded from that presumption.

Section 85B creates rebuttable evidentiary presumptions for secure electronic records and secure electronic signatures. Secure records are presumed unaltered from the relevant secure-status time, and secure signatures are presumed affixed by the subscriber with intent to sign or approve. No presumption of authenticity or integrity arises for electronic records or signatures that are not secure.

Section 85A creates a mandatory evidentiary presumption for an electronic record purporting to be an agreement and containing the electronic signatures of the parties. The Court must presume that the agreement was concluded through the affixing of those signatures. The presumption is expressed in terms of electronic signatures following substitution of the earlier digital-signature terminology.

Section 85 establishes a mandatory presumption for a purported power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or a representative of the Central Government. The Court must presume its execution and authentication accordingly.

Section 84 establishes a mandatory presumption of genuineness for books purporting to be printed or published under governmental authority and containing a country's laws. It also applies to books purporting to contain reports of decisions of that country's courts, facilitating proof of foreign laws and reported judicial decisions through such publications.

Section 83 creates a mandatory evidentiary presumption for maps or plans purporting to have been made under the authority of the Central Government or a State Government. The Court must presume both that the map or plan was so made and that it is accurate. Maps or plans prepared for the purposes of a cause do not receive that presumption of accuracy and must be proved accurate.

Where a document purports to be admissible under the law in force in England or Ireland without proof of its seal, stamp, signature, or the signatory's judicial or official character, the court must presume those authenticating features to be genuine. It must also presume that the signatory held the claimed character when signing. The document is admissible for the same purpose for which it would be admissible in England or Ireland.

Presumption of genuineness applies to an electronic record purporting to be the Official Gazette and to an electronic record that law requires any person to keep. The Court must make that presumption where the record is maintained substantially in the legally required form and is produced from proper custody.

Section 81 requires courts to presume the genuineness of specified gazettes, newspapers, journals, and copies of private Acts of Parliament printed by the Queen's Printer. The presumption also applies to records required by law to be kept where they are maintained substantially in the prescribed form and produced from proper custody. It covers official publications and legally mandated records subject to the applicable form and custody conditions.

Section 80 requires a court to presume genuine a signed record or memorandum of evidence, statement, or confession produced before it. It also requires acceptance of the signatory's stated circumstances of taking and presumption that the evidence, statement, or confession was duly taken in accordance with law.

Section 79 creates a mandatory presumption of genuineness for certificates, certified copies, and other records made admissible by legislation to prove particular facts, where they purport to be duly certified by an authorised public officer. The presumption requires substantial compliance with the legally prescribed form and manner of execution. The Court must also presume that the apparent signatory or certifying person held the official character claimed at the relevant time.

Section 78 governs the proof of public documents through prescribed official records, certified copies, and authorised publications. Governmental acts, orders, notifications, legislative proceedings, and municipal proceedings may be proved through specified departmental records, journals, certified copies, or official publications. Foreign executive and legislative records may be proved through authorised or accepted journals, sealed copies, or statutory recognition. Other foreign public documents require the original or a certified copy, authenticated through notarial, consular, or diplomatic certification and supported by proof of their character under foreign law.

Bank deposits linked to a second PAN require correlation with audited books of account, income-tax returns, and business records maintained under the original PAN before they are treated as unexplained money. The existence of a second PAN does not remove the need to verify whether the deposits and related transactions were already recorded under the original PAN. Verification should also cover the circumstances in which the second PAN was issued and cancelled. Where such verification has not occurred, reassessment after examination of the records and a reasonable opportunity to furnish evidence is required.

Composite sampling of separately seized packets requires recorded verification that the packages match in size, weight, markings and colour-test results, with equal quantities drawn from each. Mixing packet contents without that verification may fail substantial compliance with sampling directions and make samples unreliable representatives of the seized bulk. Sampling defects are assessed for prejudice rather than treated as automatically fatal. Where delayed laboratory dispatch compounds uncertainty over liability for alleged contraband, and the applicant is unlikely to reoffend, reasonable grounds may satisfy statutory bail conditions despite restrictions applicable to commercial-quantity allegations.