A money-laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has led to searches at seven locations in Chhattisgarh in connection with alleged irregularities at the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. The search operation includes the premises of K. K. Chandrakar, personal assistant to former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel. The investigation remains at the search and inquiry stage.

August 31, 2026 was the due date for taxpayers having business or professional income who were not subject to audit. Such non-audit taxpayers may use ITR-3, ITR-4, ITR-5 or ITR-7, as applicable. ITR-3 applies to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families with proprietary business or professional income, while ITR-4 is intended for small and medium taxpayers. ITR-5 applies to firms, limited liability partnerships and cooperative societies, and ITR-7 applies to trusts and charitable institutions.

Intelligence-led enforcement against organised gold smuggling resulted in the seizure of over 42 kg of foreign-origin gold and around 10 kg of foreign-origin silver, collectively valued at more than Rs. 65 crore, and the arrest of 25 persons. Operations targeted networks using airport transit routes, airport personnel, land-border corridors, coastal routes, and domestic road transport. Gold was concealed in wax, compound, paste, raw-chain and bar forms, including through body concealment, internally secreted capsules, clothing, and specially created cavities.

MoSPI and Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology have entered into a memorandum of understanding for a research study to develop a predictive and analytical framework for monthly consumption expenditure in India. The study will use Household Consumption Expenditure Survey data to estimate Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure at national and state levels, analyse household consumption patterns, and generate evidence relevant to poverty estimation and broader economic planning.

The Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 remains available until 15 September 2026, extending the period for companies to complete pending statutory filings. The further extension responds to stakeholder representations, while all other terms and conditions governing the Scheme continue without modification.

AI-assisted GST adjudication requires human oversight, verification of factual and legal inputs, and the officer's independent application of mind. AI output may support efficiency, but cannot substitute for authentic case-law verification, application of law to the facts, or personal responsibility for adjudicatory conclusions. Orders must record independent legal reasoning and culminate in a reasoned determination in accordance with law.

GST registration cancellation following a time-barred appeal distinguishes the appellate authority's restricted power to condone delay from constitutional judicial review of continuing cancellation consequences. The appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limit under Section 107. Article 226 jurisdiction does not enlarge that limitation, but permits examination of whether permanent exclusion from GST is disproportionate where it obstructs lawful business, return filing, payment of liabilities and future compliance. Conditional restoration is linked to filing pending returns and discharging dues, interest, penalty and late fee, preserving limitation while facilitating compliance and revenue collection.

Writ jurisdiction in GST matters may remain relevant despite the availability of second appeal where authorities commit patent procedural violations. Rule 86A requires procedural compliance, including recorded reasons, a reasoned order and an opportunity of hearing before blocking an electronic credit ledger. Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing as part of adjudication; an order made without hearing the taxpayer breaches audi alteram partem and may be set aside for fresh adjudication through a reasoned order.

Section 264 revision cannot be used after expiry of the revised-return period to introduce a tolerance benefit omitted from a self-assessed return processed under section 143(1). The competing issue is whether binding appellate precedent requiring a tolerance benefit must be followed by revenue authorities, including in revisionary proceedings and intimation processing. The analysis questions whether revisionary correction remains available where self-assessed income exceeds tax legally payable and whether subsequent legal developments or clarificatory tolerance amendments warrant consideration.

Demand-specific finality may attach to the portion of an appellate order that sets aside a demand where that portion is no longer challenged, even though further appeal is proposed against the surviving liability. A statutory pre-deposit is security for the disputed demand, not tax. Accordingly, the proportionate pre-deposit attributable to a dropped and concluded demand cannot be withheld merely because another portion of the original demand remains under challenge. A further appellate pre-deposit obligation for the surviving demand operates independently of the refund due for the concluded portion.

GST cross-empowerment allows either Central or State GST administration to undertake intelligence-based investigation despite routine administrative allocation. The bar against parallel action applies only when a second show cause notice concerns the same subject matter. Summons, search and seizure are investigative measures, not initiation of barred proceedings. Identity requires the same factual tax liability or offence and the same demand or relief; similar input tax credit issues alone are insufficient. Taxpayers should comply with summons, disclose suspected overlap in writing, and compare the date, period, allegation and proposed demand in each show cause notice.

Section 136 of the CGST Act governs the evidentiary use of signed statements made on appearance pursuant to a Section 70 summons when their contents are relied upon to prove facts in a prosecution for an offence. Recording a statement does not by itself establish the truth of the underlying allegation. Where the maker is available, examination before the Court and a judicial opinion on admission are required. Where statements materially support an allegation, cross-examination, retraction, and independent corroboration affect their evidentiary weight.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires specific averments before a company director can face vicarious criminal liability for cheque dishonour. The complaint must show that, when the offence occurred, the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, or that the offence resulted from the director's consent, connivance or neglect. Directorship alone does not create deemed liability. General allegations against all accused, without particulars of the director's day-to-day role or involvement in the cheque transactions, are insufficient; nor can process be sustained without addressing these statutory requirements.

Statutory pre-deposit must be furnished within the period expressly fixed by a coordinate-bench order where that order conditions restoration of an appeal on timely compliance and provides for revival of dismissal upon default. A delayed deposit does not warrant a further extension or a direction requiring the appellate authority to accept it, because such relief would defeat the binding terms imposed in the separate writ proceeding. The assessee was therefore not entitled to restoration through acceptance of the belated pre-deposit.

The special leave petition challenging a High Court judgment in a VAT and sales-tax dispute was dismissed after the Supreme Court declined to interfere. Delay in filing was condoned. The High Court judgment therefore remained undisturbed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Threshing, cleaning, sieving and sizing dried broken raw tobacco leaves, followed by bulk packing, do not constitute manufacture because the processes neither produce a commodity with a distinct name, character or use nor alter the tobacco's essential identity. Deemed manufacture for tobacco covers labelling, relabelling, repacking from bulk to retail packs, or treatment that renders tobacco marketable to consumers. As the tobacco was already marketable, received no chemical treatment, flavouring, blending, branding or retail packing, and was packed only bulk-to-bulk, the activities do not fall within deemed manufacture. Central Excise duty is therefore not payable merely for these operations.

CENVAT credit is admissible on commission paid to a sole selling agent where the agent promotes sales and provides installation, commissioning and warranty-related after-sales services contractually connected with dutiable final goods. These services qualify as input services when they enhance the value of the goods, particularly where invoices identify commission for sales and the service tax treatment corresponds with the services supplied. Extended limitation cannot apply merely from ordinary business records; it requires evidence of suppression. A bona fide credit claim on an interpretative issue does not support invocation of the extended period. Consequently, denial of the disputed credit and the related demand are unsustainable on both merits and limitation.

Full recovery or payment of the amount required for pre-deposit satisfies the pre-deposit condition under Section 35F, even where compliance occurs after dismissal of the appeal. Dismissal for initial non-compliance should not permanently extinguish the statutory right of appeal once complete compliance is established and Revenue suffers no prejudice. Rule 41 permits restoration where required to secure the ends of justice. Appeals dismissed solely for failure to meet the pre-deposit condition must therefore be restored for adjudication on merits after the entire service-tax liability has been recovered or paid.

Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 permits refund of accumulated CENVAT credit attributable to exported output services. Eligible exporters of software services remain entitled to refund of unutilised credit even where the exported software service is not taxable. Non-taxability of the exported service does not defeat the refund claim under Rule 5, including in relation to the taxable-service definition and Notification No. 18/2008-ST.

Penalty imposed in the assessee's capacity as partner of one entity had attained finality. A distinct penalty arising from the assessee's position as majority shareholder of the holding company of another entity was not covered by the existing remand direction, although that entity's matters had been sent for fresh consideration. The separate shareholder-related penalty is remitted to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration together with the remanded matters of the relevant entity and connected entities.