Section 14 permits facts showing intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, ill-will, bodily condition, or bodily feeling where that state is in issue or relevant. The fact must relate to the particular matter, not merely establish a general character, habit, or disposition. Prior acts, communications, possessions, complaints, and surrounding circumstances may prove the relevant state of mind when specifically connected to the transaction or offence. Evidence of general criminal disposition, habitual negligence, or general violent conduct remains irrelevant.

Where a right or custom is in issue, relevant facts include transactions that created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted, denied or contradicted its existence. Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised or exercised, or its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from, are also relevant. For a fishery right, this may include ancestral grants, mortgages, inconsistent later grants, prior exercise, and interference by neighbours.

Relevance of evidence in a suit claiming damages extends to any fact capable of assisting the court in determining the amount that ought to be awarded. The fact must tend to enable assessment of the appropriate quantum of damages and is relevant for the limited purpose of quantifying the damages claim.

Otherwise irrelevant facts become relevant when they are inconsistent with a fact in issue or relevant fact, or make the existence or non-existence of such fact highly probable or improbable. This includes facts showing the accused was elsewhere or sufficiently distant at the relevant time, and facts excluding other possible perpetrators.

Conspirator statements, acts and writings are relevant against every person believed to be part of a conspiracy where reasonable grounds support that belief. The material must relate to the common intention and arise after that intention was first entertained by any participant. It may prove both the existence of the conspiracy and a person's participation, including where that person was unaware of particular connected acts.

Explanatory and introductory facts are relevant where necessary to explain a fact in issue, support or rebut an inference, establish identity, fix time or place, or show the relationship between parties to a transaction. Their relevance is limited to what is necessary for that purpose. Contextual facts and accompanying statements may explain conduct or the nature of a transaction, while unrelated details remain irrelevant unless required to establish the necessary context.

Section 8 makes facts showing or constituting motive or preparation relevant to a fact in issue or relevant fact. Previous or subsequent conduct of parties, agents, or persons against whom an offence is the subject of proceedings is relevant where it influences or is influenced by such facts. Conduct generally excludes statements, except statements accompanying and explaining acts, or statements made to or in the presence and hearing of a person that affect relevant conduct. Relevant conduct may include evidence concealment, absconding, possession of crime-derived property, and prompt complaints concerning alleged offences.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge a GST assessment where the statutory appeal was not filed within the prescribed limitation or the further condonable period. Pandemic-related limitation protection and the special procedure permitting delayed appeals against specified assessment orders did not assist where neither route was used. In the absence of exceptional grounds such as breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or abuse of process, failure to pursue appellate remedies precludes writ intervention.

Relevance of facts includes facts that occasion, cause, or result from facts in issue or other relevant facts, including connected circumstances and opportunities for an occurrence or transaction. Illustrative relevant facts include a robbery victim's prior possession or disclosure of money, signs of a struggle near the place of a murder, and the suspected poisoning victim's prior health and habits known to the suspected actor where those habits created an opportunity to administer poison.

Same-transaction relevancy makes facts not in issue relevant where they are sufficiently connected with a fact in issue to form part of one transaction, notwithstanding differences in time or place. Relevant connected facts may include contemporaneous or closely connected statements and conduct during an assault, events forming part of a wider insurrection, related correspondence surrounding an allegedly libellous communication, and successive deliveries through intermediate persons.

Section 5 confines admissible evidence to facts in issue and other facts declared relevant, excluding matters outside those categories. Its scope is subject to applicable civil-procedure restrictions, and it does not permit proof of facts barred by those requirements. A party that fails to produce a bond at the first hearing may subsequently produce or prove its contents only in accordance with prescribed civil-procedure conditions.

Section 4 establishes three evidentiary effects: may presume permits the Court either to treat a fact as proved unless disproved or to require proof; shall presume requires the Court to treat a fact as proved unless disproved; and conclusive proof requires proof of one fact to establish another while excluding evidence to disprove it.

Section 3 defines facts, relevancy, facts in issue, documents, evidence, and the standards of proof. Facts include perceptible conditions and conscious mental states, while facts in issue determine asserted or denied rights, liabilities or disabilities. Evidence comprises oral witness statements and documentary evidence, including electronic records. Proof and disproof depend on belief or probability sufficient for a prudent person to act upon the relevant supposition; a fact is not proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.

Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution do not impliedly repeal or displace the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, because a specialised development authority is distinct from a Municipality and retains power to undertake planned development and incidental acquisition. The Act's self-contained acquisition procedure is not overridden by the general Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Planned housing development constitutes a public purpose, and authorised survey powers and governmental sanction remain valid where affected persons receive notice and an opportunity to object. Promissory estoppel protects land covered by enforceable governmental development assurances, while disputed claims require individual determination. Wholesale invalidation based on alleged arbitrariness or discrimination is impermissible without individual proof of comparable treatment.

External Development Charges paid to the Directorate of Town and Country Planning through Haryana Urban Development Authority, acting solely as the State Government's executing agency, constitute payments to Government for external development works. Such payments do not attract tax deduction at source under Chapter XVII-B. Consequently, non-deduction does not make the payer an assessee in default, and a tax demand with consequential interest is not justified.

Section 2 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, positioned in the preliminary portion under the subject of repeal of enactments, was repealed by section 2 and the Schedule to the Repealing Act, 1938. It is therefore identified as a repealed statutory provision, and its stated subject of repeal of enactments no longer operates as a provision within the legislative framework of that Act.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable to challenge an appealable GST order when the statutory appellate remedy remains open. Repeated opportunities of hearing, including personal hearings fixed at the taxpayer's convenience, must be used before seeking writ review. Failure to participate in those hearings weighs against invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to present factual or legal submissions for the first time.

Section 1 names the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, extends it throughout India, and provides that it applies to judicial proceedings before courts, including courts-martial, except those convened under specified military disciplinary enactments. Its application excludes affidavits presented to a court or officer and proceedings before an arbitrator. Territorial application was extended to specified Union territories, and the former exclusion relating to Jammu and Kashmir was omitted.

Social Welfare Surcharge on imported goods remains separately leviable where Basic Customs Duty and Additional Duties of Customs are discharged through duty credit scrips. Neither the Foreign Trade Policy nor the relevant exemption arrangements contemplate debit of the surcharge through such scrips. As a scrip is a mode of duty payment rather than an exemption from duty, the surcharge is payable in cash by the importer. Earlier surcharge debits made through duty credit scrips are accepted as revenue duly collected, without insistence on cash recovery.

Timely filing became a condition for deductions under Part C of Chapter VI-A from assessment year 2018-19. Before 1 April 2021, return processing did not permit adjustment of a Section 80P deduction merely because the return was filed after the prescribed due date; delayed filing also fell outside the incorrect-claim adjustment. Delay condonation was available for the relevant returns claiming Section 80P deduction. Consequently, deduction claims in delayed returns for the relevant assessment years remained allowable at the processing stage.