Export duty recovery for goods cleared under bonds pending test reports requires finalisation of provisional assessments before proceedings for non-levy or short levy can begin. Bonds executed under Section 18 obligated exporters to pay duty finally assessed after adverse test reports, so the clearances remained provisional rather than constituting provisional release or reassessment. Demand notices issued before final assessment were therefore premature. Redemption fine under Section 125 cannot be sustained where exported goods were neither seized nor provisionally released and are unavailable for confiscation. The duty demands, redemption fine and penalties were set aside, while the merits of rice classification remained open.

Post-export conversion of shipping bills from the Advance Authorisation Scheme to the duty drawback scheme cannot be refused solely because a request exceeds the three-month period prescribed by Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. That circular-based limitation is inconsistent with the statutory framework governing amendment of customs documents, and consequential export benefits remain available after export. Notification No. 11/2022-Cus. (N.T.), which introduced time limits for specified post-export conversions, does not apply retrospectively to exports made before its introduction. Shipping bills for such earlier exports remain eligible for conversion without denial based on either the circular limitation or the later notification.

EPCG duty exemption requires strict compliance with the stipulated export obligation. Failure to meet that obligation makes the duty saved and applicable interest recoverable unless a waiver is obtained from the competent EPCG or DGFT authority; flood damage to imported machinery did not establish such waiver. The machinery had been installed but was subsequently submerged and damaged beyond repair. While duty and interest liability for non-fulfilment of export obligation remained enforceable, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were not sustained in those circumstances. The exemption condition was applied strictly, with the importer bearing the burden of proving entitlement to the exemption.

Under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, proper client authorisation need not be received directly from the importer where authorisation letters are available. A Customs Broker is not shown to have failed in its duty to advise clients merely because inferior quality or overvaluation is detected after First Check assessment, physical examination and valuation by approved valuers, absent evidence of deficient advice. KYC obligations are met by obtaining IEC, GSTIN, PAN and other documents issued by competent authorities; the regulations do not require independent verification of every document or physical verification of the importer's premises. On these principles, alleged breaches of the authorisation, advisory and KYC duties were not established, and licence revocation and security forfeiture were set aside.

Forfeiture of earnest money in an e-auction required fresh consideration under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act because the statutory requirements governing contractual forfeiture, including the necessity and quantum of loss, had not been raised or examined. The applicable e-auction terms also required determination of whether the forfeitable amount was 25% or 10% of the successful bid. The High Court set aside the rejection of the refund claim and remitted that issue to the Company Judge after completion of pleadings, leaving the merits of forfeiture open.

Right to information covers material held by or under the control of a public authority when an RTI request is made. Information concerning a private body may be sought only where another law permits the authority to access it, subject to the conditions and restrictions of that law. Regulatory power to call for information does not require a public authority to obtain, create, collect or collate material absent from its records merely to answer an RTI application. Directions requiring SEBI to procure information from BSE and provide it to applicants were treated as unsustainable, and the challenged CIC directions were quashed.

Admission of the corporate insolvency resolution process may rest on an undisputed record of default filed with an information utility, together with other material establishing that the corporate debtor availed the loans. For a financial creditor's application, the adjudicating authority must ascertain default from information utility records or other evidence furnished. Where the debtor does not dispute the pleaded default date, objections that loan documents are photocopies do not invalidate admission. The challenge to admission was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Orders disposing of show-cause notices under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in exercise of disciplinary committee jurisdiction fall within the appellate remedy available for orders under the relevant provisions. Where an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal is available, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked at the first instance, even if the order does not finally determine the consequences of alleged misconduct. The disciplinary dispute may instead be pursued through the statutory appeal, with any delay assessed in light of prior writ proceedings.

Intermediary service classification does not apply to loan origination, credit assessment, structuring, disbursement and loan-management activities performed by an Indian bank office for its Singapore head office where both form the same legal person. The arrangement lacks the required three distinct parties, identifiable main and ancillary supplies, and remuneration linked to the external lending service. The Indian office performs principal functions on its own account, while the head office alone enters into and makes final decisions on external commercial borrowing arrangements. The activities are therefore not liable to service tax as intermediary services, rendering the related demand and penalties unsustainable.

Personal insolvency interim moratorium does not stay cheque-dishonour prosecutions against company directors and responsible persons where the dishonoured cheques represent the company's debt. Directors are prosecuted through statutory vicarious liability rather than as primary personal debtors, while the moratorium applies to civil debt-recovery actions concerning the individual debtor and does not bar criminal proceedings. Potential recovery of compensation does not justify staying the trial at that stage. A pending reference to a larger Bench does not weaken the binding effect of existing law unless altered; therefore, trials need not await determination of questions concerning compensation. Applications and writ petitions seeking to stay or defer the prosecutions were dismissed, and interim stays were vacated.

Inherent jurisdiction to quash cheque dishonour proceedings cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial where complaints prima facie disclose the offence and disputed issues, including security cheques, enforceable debt, service of notice and settlement, require evidence. The statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt under section 139 remains subject to trial. Separate complaints based on two consolidated demand notices for multiple dishonoured cheques from one transaction are maintainable. Non-reflection of the underlying transaction in income-tax returns does not by itself rebut the statutory presumptions or make the debt unenforceable; any income-tax breach may attract a prescribed penalty. The quashing petitions were dismissed and expeditious trial completion directed.

Alleged misuse of Ayushman health-scheme cards involved collecting identity and ration-card details by promising free treatment, then creating forged beneficiary cards with false particulars. The alleged scheme enabled treatment for ineligible persons and purported claims of government health-scheme funds. Police arrested five persons, recovered purported forged identity and beneficiary cards, and are investigating possible involvement of hospital and medical-office personnel, the scale of card forgery, and alleged diversion of public funds.

MSME development is identified as central to employment generation, exports, entrepreneurship, economic resilience and self-reliance. Key priorities include affordable credit, technology upgradation, supply-chain integration, market access, brand-building and reduced red tape. Formalisation of micro industries is emphasised to expand institutional credit access, while sustainable trade is promoted through green technologies and renewable energy. Export competitiveness is to be strengthened through regional production capabilities and the "One District, One Export Hub" initiative.

Monetary policy calibration remained on hold because food and fuel inflation had not yet produced broad-based or persistent price pressures. The policy pause was supported by limited pass-through of supply-side shocks, contained core inflation and no clear demand-driven overheating. Recalibration depends on incoming evidence of persistent inflation, entrenched supply-side pressures, de-anchored expectations and the evolving growth-inflation dynamic. Geopolitical disruption, volatile oil prices, monsoon conditions and El Nin o-related agricultural risks remain material inflation risks.

Compassionate-appointment applications arising from an employee's death before the 2020 Rehabilitation Assistance Rules commenced must be assessed under the rules in force on the date of death where the application was timely under the 1990 Rules. Administrative delay in processing a pending application cannot subject the applicant to the later regime. Substituted Rule 6(9), introduced by the 2025 Amendment Rules, expressly preserves the earlier rules for pending claims concerning pre-2020 deaths. The prior judicial declaration regarding the former Rule 6(9) continues to operate absent a stay. Accordingly, the application must be considered under the 1990 Rules.

Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could entertain a challenge relating to proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal under the insolvency framework. The jurisdictional objection required consideration, and notice was issued. The impugned order and further proceedings were stayed pending further consideration, suspending the challenged action during the interim period.

Revocation of a customs broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty cannot be sustained where the Regulation 17 enquiry substantially exceeds the prescribed timeline without recorded justification or a finding that the customs broker caused the delay. Although the timeline is directory, a delay of more than nine months between the show-cause notice and enquiry report required reasons showing that it was reasonable, unavoidable or attributable to the broker. Procedural fairness was also impaired because the enquiry officer investigated the underlying offence. The revocation, forfeiture and penalty were therefore set aside.

Interest-free or inadequately remunerated loans to a concern connected with a person specified under Section 13(3) constitute a benefit attracting Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d). Under Section 164(2), the applicable CBDT circular and judicial position, the breach taxes only income attributable to the prohibited benefit at the maximum marginal rate, rather than withdrawing Section 11 exemption from the trust's entire income. Accordingly, notional interest on the connected-party loan is taxable, while the trust retains exemption for its remaining income. The Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 13 is consistent with this limited-denial approach.

A penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be sustained where the notice under section 274 retains both statutory limbs without identifying the specific charge. Failure to strike off the inapplicable limb leaves the allegation ambiguous, denies the assessee clear notice and an effective opportunity to defend, and vitiates the penalty proceedings. The penalty was therefore treated as invalid and deleted.

Cash deposits assessed as unexplained income under Section 68 were supported by a cash-flow statement, prior income records, loan documents, bank records, household and education expense evidence, and the spouse's returns. The available material established an opening cash balance, while the balance of the deposits was explained through the assessee's, spouse's and agricultural income. An opening cash balance brought forward from an earlier year cannot be taxed in the relevant year. Where supporting evidence is not specifically rebutted, the entire cash deposit cannot be treated as unexplained on surmises and conjectures; the addition was therefore deleted.