Rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act is limited to patent errors apparent from the existing record. It cannot be used to decide disputed input tax credit claims requiring supporting documents, factual verification, or fresh appreciation of evidence. The power may correct self-evident clerical, arithmetical, accidental, or double-computation errors, subject to statutory time limits and natural justice where a person is adversely affected. Substantive disputes and debatable questions of fact or law must be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy within the applicable limitation period.

Retrospective operation of Section 16(5) made otherwise time-barred input tax credit eligible where returns for the relevant period were filed before the stipulated cut-off date, removing the basis for the related principal demand. Penalty quantum under Section 73(9) depends on the surviving tax demand; therefore, penalty enhancement cannot operate independently where the demand has been displaced or requires reconsideration. Return mismatch, supplier non-uploading of payment particulars, and alleged short payment require factual examination in fresh adjudication.

Input tax credit on materials used to construct commercial immovable property depends on whether construction is undertaken on the taxpayer's own account or for taxable renting or leasing. Construction intended for the taxpayer's own use is treated as blocked under section 17(5)(d), while construction intended from inception for rental or lease services is presented as falling outside that category. Intended end use, established before construction through approvals, layout and design, is identified as the key factual consideration for determining credit eligibility.

Last-minute references to a District Valuation Officer under Section 142A, made immediately before assessment limitation under Section 153 expires, may be a colourable exercise where no bona fide valuation requirement exists. Valuation of fixed assets may not be relevant where the actual issue concerns the allowability of depreciation based on ownership or business use. A valid valuation reference requires independent application of mind, cogent material, recorded reasons, and satisfaction of statutory conditions. Timely valuation action is necessary to prevent artificial extension of assessment proceedings.

The BEDF Basmati and Organic Training Centre-cum-Demonstration Farm will provide practical support for Basmati cultivation, organic farming and agri-exports. Its activities include demonstrations of notified Basmati varieties, pest and nutrient management, organic inputs and cultivation practices. A Seed Multiplication Centre will produce and multiply breeder, foundation, certified and truthful seed, while maintenance breeding will support varietal purification. Training will cover seed production, organic and bio-input production, organic certification requirements, quality standards, packaging and export procedures, with technical support for farmers, Farmer Producer Organisations and extension workers.

BRICS cooperation is directed at improving women-led enterprises' access to credit, markets and predictable trade rules. Proposed measures include an invoice-discounting platform responsive to women exporters, a Women's Advancement Fund, a common trade platform, and greater participation in exhibitions, buyer-seller meetings and sector-specific delegations. Electronic trade documents and cross-border online services are envisaged alongside respect for domestic laws. Businesses are encouraged to identify procedural barriers and propose solutions to reduce documentation and improve ease of doing business.

Intelligence-led enforcement against illegal wildlife trafficking involved six coordinated operations, seizures of protected wildlife and derivatives, and arrests. The operations addressed alleged poaching, possession, transportation, sale and trafficking of leopard pelts, live Indian star tortoises, live tokay geckos, pangolin scales and tiger bones under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Recovered articles, apprehended persons and relevant vehicles were transferred to Forest Department officers for investigation and further action.

Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 requires the Facilitation Council to conduct mediation on a reference and, if mediation fails, to either arbitrate the dispute itself or refer it to a competent arbitral institution or centre. Dismissing the reference after unsuccessful mediation, without commencing or making an effective arbitral reference, is inconsistent with the statutory dispute-resolution mechanism. The reference must proceed to arbitration or be referred for adjudication on merits.

MSME borrowers seeking revival and rehabilitation protection must raise eligible MSME status and seek a corrective plan or rehabilitation in response to a SARFAESI demand notice. A secured creditor must examine a properly raised claim and may need to keep further enforcement measures in abeyance where the claim warrants acceptance. A belated MSME-protection claim cannot reopen earlier SARFAESI measures or a consequential auction notice when it was not raised in the initial response or prior proceedings. The Henderson Principle, constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 prevent later assertion of grounds that could and should have been raised earlier. The statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal remains available.

Presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt arising from an admitted cheque signature are rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. A probable defence may emerge from deficiencies in the complainant's evidence, including failure to establish financial capacity to advance an alleged cash loan through bank records, receipts, or another financial trail. Delivery of a signed blank cheque does not eliminate the need to prove the underlying liability once such a defence is raised. Non-production of a material eyewitness may justify an adverse inference. Consistent defence evidence and evidentiary gaps can rebut the presumption, leaving the alleged debt unproved and a cheque-dishonour conviction unsustainable.

Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires a complainant to repay, with stipulated interest, any amount released during an appeal when the accused is acquitted. Although a repayment direction would ordinarily be made by the appellate court, a trial-court direction was not disturbed where the complainant had undertaken repayment before the appellate court, the amount was subsequently deposited under court directions, and repayment was not promptly made. The complainant therefore remained obliged to refund the released amount following acquittal.

Section 36AAA(1) of the Banking Regulation Act governs RBI-supervised supersession of boards of multi-State co-operative banks. The third proviso to Article 243ZL(1) preserves application of the banking regulatory regime to co-operative societies conducting banking business; consequently, the general six-month constitutional limit does not constrain supersession under Section 36AAA(1). Supersession may be extended, including beyond the elected tenure of the erstwhile board, within the aggregate statutory ceiling of five years. The Administrator must convene a general meeting to elect new directors before expiry of the supersession period specified by the RBI. Consultation with a State Government is not required for a multi-State co-operative bank.

Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act permits a valuation enquiry where there is reason to believe that market value or consideration has not been truly stated. Its text does not expressly require wilful undervaluation or fraudulent intent to evade stamp duty. Treating fraudulent intent as an independent jurisdictional condition may conflict with literal construction of a taxing statute and restrict valuation-based scrutiny. However, binding three-Judge Bench precedent had imposed that requirement. The conflict over the correctness of that precedent was referred to a larger Bench, without a final determination of stamp-duty liability or the notice's validity.

Appellate orders that reopen the predominant assessment issue for fresh consideration, while allowing supporting evidence on a claimed transit-sale exemption, may in substance set aside the assessment and require a fresh assessment under the third proviso to Section 58(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Such an order bars a further appeal to the Tribunal. Claims, evidence and documents must instead be pursued before the Assessing Officer, who must complete the fresh assessment independently and without prejudice from prior observations.

Refund of excess tax or penalty under the Bihar Value Added Tax framework must be sought through the prescribed Form A-VIII procedure. A change in the designation of the competent refund officer does not by itself invalidate an application filed with the corresponding predecessor authority; the application may be forwarded to the redesignated officer. Delayed-refund interest does not arise automatically after an appellate or Tribunal order. Defects in the prescribed application must be cured, and delay attributable to the claimant is excluded. Interest becomes payable only where a compliant application is received and the authority fails to make the refund within ten days.

Approval of a clean-slate resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds statutory authorities and settles or extinguishes pre-resolution statutory claims not preserved in the plan. Tax assessment and recovery proceedings for dues addressed under an approved plan cannot continue, because the plan supersedes enforcement of those earlier liabilities. A statutory pre-deposit made for a tax appeal forms part of the disputed demand; where the plan fully settles departmental dues, retention of that deposit beyond the plan allocation is impermissible. The related pre-deposit must therefore be released with applicable interest.

CST, VAT and sales tax matters form the subject of multiple special leave petitions brought against High Court orders. The proceedings concern tax-related determinations involving a private company and State respondents and invoke the special leave petition mechanism for review by the Supreme Court. No underlying statutory provision or discrete substantive tax issue is identified.

Statutory interest on delayed excise-duty refunds arises automatically once three months elapse after receipt of a valid refund application. Duty paid under protest, together with contemporaneous electronic refund claims accepted without objection, is treated as protected protest payment rather than voluntary payment. Electronic claims constitute the relevant applications for computing interest, while a later physical Form R filing is only an administrative reiteration. The relevant-date rule governing refund-claim limitation does not defer interest, and limitation, delay or laches does not defeat a request invoking the statutory interest obligation. Interest runs until refund sanction, subject to verification of claim-receipt dates and calculation.

CENVAT credit on imported capital goods is available only to the manufacturer or service provider legally entitled to claim it under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Where a separate corporate entity imports and owns the goods, pays CVD and holds the Bills of Entry, another entity cannot claim that credit merely because of common shareholding, captive consumption, economic integration or revenue neutrality. Credit availed without statutory authority is recoverable under Rule 14 read with Section 11A, with applicable interest. Equal penalty may apply under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC where the relevant facts support it. No statutory mechanism permits cross-entity transfer of such credit.

Mutatis mutandis incorporation of customs-notification conditions into the International Competitive Bidding excise exemption extends only to conditions capable of operating for domestic clearances. Import-specific procedural requirements cannot be imposed mechanically on indigenous manufacturers where the eligible project, actual end use and Project Authority Certificate are undisputed; substantive exemption eligibility therefore remains intact. A duty demand founded solely on exemption denial cannot survive, and payment under protest does not validate it. Interest requires a legally recoverable principal duty liability. Penalties are not attracted where clearances followed prior intimation and certificate production, with no suppression or clandestine removal and only an interpretational dispute.