Residuary penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act was unsustainable where specific penal provisions were available and the importer's omission arose from the supplier's failure to provide an invoice. After clearance, the importer verified the consignment, voluntarily disclosed the omitted invoice to Customs, and sought reassessment to pay duty on the entire consignment. As no material showed that Customs would otherwise have detected the irregularity, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 117, allowed the appeal, and granted consequential relief.

Classification of low-ethoxylated non-ionic fatty alcohol ethoxylates depends on the tariff headings and Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 34. Classification as an organic surface-active agent under CTI 3402 1300 requires satisfaction of both the prescribed water-mixture condition and surface-tension reduction. Test results showing a translucent liquid separating into two layers failed the requirement of a liquid or stable emulsion without separated insoluble matter. HSN Explanatory Notes place water-insoluble surface-active products outside Heading 3402 and under Heading 3824 where no more specific heading applies. The imported goods were therefore classified under CTI 3824 9090/3824 9990, rendering the proposed duty, interest and penalties unsustainable.

Goods imported into an SEZ for authorised operations remain exempt from customs duty until their removal to the Domestic Tariff Area. The statutory fiction for SEZ-to-DTA removals applies duty treatment equivalent to comparable imports only at the stage of DTA clearance and does not create an earlier liability. Where imported fabric was still to undergo authorised operations in an FTWZ, differential duty on the imported goods could not support a bank-guarantee condition for provisional release. Release may be secured by a bond equal to the goods' value, restricted to authorised FTWZ use, with duty payable when the resultant manufactured goods enter the DTA.

Under Section 138B, a customs statement offered to prove its contents is relevant only in prescribed circumstances. A retracted statement, where specifically requested cross-examination is refused, cannot serve as legal evidence against a noticee. In confiscation proceedings, untested statements cannot independently establish that seized gold was smuggled or that the person knew it was liable to confiscation. Denial of cross-examination undermines confiscation and penalty findings under customs law.

Authorization to the SFIO Director to present attachment and disgorgement proceedings in the Union of India's name does not constitute delegation of statutory power where the Central Government has already considered the investigation report, decided to institute proceedings, and retains essential decision-making discretion. The application was therefore validly instituted through an authorised officer. Disgorgement and asset-freezing relief for oppression, mismanagement and fraudulent conduct are not confined to Section 212(14A); they may also be pursued under the statutory framework governing such conduct. The challenge to SFIO's authority and the claim that Section 212(14A) was the exclusive source of disgorgement power were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.

Approved resolution plans bind existing members and override inconsistent company-law remedies, so equity share capital validly extinguished under a concluded insolvency resolution cannot be revived through rectification of the Register of Members. Membership in a company limited by shares follows shareholding; no separate membership right survives cancellation of pre-resolution shares. Register-maintenance provisions are administrative and do not preserve extinguished rights, while Producer Company provisions do not apply to a non-Producer Company. Rectification is confined to wrongful entries or omissions and related damages, not independent compensation, fresh shares, interest, or mental-suffering damages. Claims omitted from the plan are extinguished under its clean-slate effect; the rectification claim and consequential reliefs were not maintainable.

Show-cause notices initiating disciplinary action against insolvency professionals must be based on material disclosed or at least identified to the noticee, particularly where an investigation report has found no actionable material. Reliance on undisclosed material extraneous to the investigation undermines procedural fairness and vitiates the notice. Disciplinary findings must also address relevant defences and contextual material, including creditor representation, absence of stakeholder objections, the scope of alleged consultation failures, and explanations for auction delays. Disregarding such material breaches natural justice; the resulting suspension order was quashed, while the regulatory challenge remained open.

Suspended directors are entitled to meaningful participation in CIRP and may challenge an approved resolution plan, but non-supply of plan materials does not invalidate approval absent a confidentiality undertaking, specific objection, or material prejudice. A practising Chartered Accountant is not ineligible to submit a plan solely because of professional status. CIRP may be withdrawn after admission only through the prescribed approval and statutory withdrawal process; an uncompleted settlement or part-payment cannot halt it. The CoC may assess viability, feasibility and implementation rather than accept the highest post-closure offer. Government claims omitted from an approved plan are extinguished, and statutory dues do not generally ra.....

Competing mortgage priorities in liquidation fall within the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction where determining encumbrances and liquidation-estate assets is necessary for custody, verification and realisation. Earlier second pari-passu charges moved into priority after discharge of the first mortgage; a later independent simple mortgage remained subordinate under the chronological priority rule, and assignees obtained no better rights than their assignor. Non-registration did not create or defeat the underlying charge as between parties and persons with notice. Failure to elect timely realisation of subordinate security outside liquidation caused the security interest to be treated as part of the liquidation estate, supporting dismissal of the assignee's claim and delivery of title deeds to the Liquidator.

Prolonged pre-trial custody in money-laundering proceedings may require constitutional protection of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 to prevail over the bail restrictions in Section 45 of the PMLA. No fixed custody period determines this result; the assessment depends on the alleged role, prescribed sentence, trial stage and expected duration, and risks of absconding or interference with evidence. Where investigation is complete, trial progress remains delayed, no early completion is realistic, and delay is not attributable to the accused, the statutory twin conditions may be diluted. Regular bail may then be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

Redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation cannot be included in the estimated amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. High Court treated the issue as covered by an earlier High Court ruling and noted that the related special leave petition had been dismissed. The inclusion of redemption fine was quashed, and the authorities were directed to recalculate the Scheme liability after excluding it. A discharge certificate must issue once the legally recoverable dues are paid and all Scheme conditions are met.

Long-term leases conferring development rights, possession and effective control for a one-time premium are treated as transfers of immovable property rather than taxable renting services; associated premiums and transfer fees are consequently outside service tax. Construction of residential complexes remains taxable, but prescribed abatement applies where its conditions are met and CENVAT credit has been reversed. Interest charged for delayed payment of unit-sale consideration is liquidated damages, not service consideration. Water supplied by a governmental development authority in a sovereign function is treated as goods supply rather than taxable service. Repeated non-payment after prior notice and confirmation supports extended limitation for the residual liability.

Signed cheques attract statutory presumptions of consideration and discharge of legally enforceable liability, including where a voluntarily delivered blank signed cheque is relied upon. A drawer alleging that the cheque was misplaced must rebut those presumptions through cogent evidence, including credible particulars of loss and an explanation of the holder's possession. Territorial jurisdiction may arise where part of the cause of action occurred, such as collection of the loan or presentation of the cheque within the court's area. Pendente lite and post-decree interest may be awarded under the court's discretionary power even without an agreed contractual rate, provided the rate is fair and judiciously fixed.

Change of opinion precludes reassessment of share-capital and investment transactions already examined through detailed scrutiny, where the assessee neither concealed nor withheld material; an anonymous complaint alone cannot reopen those matters. Reassessment notices converted into show-cause notices under the amended regime must be issued within the surviving limitation period after excluding the stay period and response time. Extended limitation cannot apply unless the statutory conditions are invoked and recorded, and sanction is obtained from the competent authority where the relevant period has elapsed. A notice issued beyond the surviving period is void, rendering consequential reassessment, demand and penalty actions unsustainable, subject to fresh proceedings where legally permissible.

GST limitation under Section 73 may be affected by extensions for annual returns and exclusion of the COVID-19 limitation period. The limitation for the relevant financial years was treated as expiring on 28 February 2025, making a show-cause notice issued on 13 June 2025 time-barred. The issue is whether suo motu limitation extensions, described as protecting litigants unable to institute proceedings, extend to departmental GST proceedings and statutory notice issuance.

Clubbing and transfer of FIRs arising from the same allegations and forming one transaction require a consistent investigative forum, as parallel investigation is improper. The operative direction was corrected to align with that reasoning: the later FIR registered at Gurugram must be clubbed with and transferred to the earlier FIR registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. The clarification only rectified the transfer inconsistency and did not permit selection of an investigating agency.

Article 21 protection of life and personal liberty extends to timely pronouncement of reserved High Court judgments, particularly where custody or urgent remedies are involved. A nationwide framework under Article 142 requires High Courts to endeavour to deliver reasoned reserved judgments within three months, supported by priority treatment, administrative monitoring, reassignment after continued default, and remedies for early pronouncement or transfer for fresh hearing. Reasoned judgments should ordinarily be uploaded within 24 hours of open-court pronouncement; urgent operative orders require reasons within seven days, extendable to fifteen days for practical difficulty. Status updates, advocate communication, escalation, and corrective measures promote transparency.

Restoration of an appeal dismissed for failure to remove defects, including mandatory statutory pre-deposit, requires sufficient cause supported by a bona fide, diligent and documented explanation proportionate to the delay. Service of Registry communications and repeated non-appearance weigh against restoration where the appellant fails to establish compliance efforts or justified inability to act. An unexplained delay of nearly five years, coupled with unsupported grounds for non-compliance with pre-deposit, does not satisfy the sufficient-cause standard. Rejection of restoration raises no substantial question of law or perversity on these facts.

Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires a service-tax appeal to be filed within two months and permits condonation for sufficient cause only up to one additional month. Delay beyond that statutory maximum cannot be condoned because the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal lack jurisdiction to extend the prescribed limitation period. A service-tax appeal filed 101 days after expiry of the normal filing period therefore remains barred by limitation, and the Commissioner (Appeals)' limitation finding operates against the assessee.

Residual penalty under the Customs Act requires identification of a specific statutory provision contravened where no express penalty is otherwise prescribed. A classification dispute alone does not establish a contravention by a customs broker for this purpose. Because the adjudicating authority did not identify any provision breached by the broker, and that omission was accepted, the residual penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.