Before 1 July 2012, a residential complex required buildings with more than twelve residential units, common areas and specified facilities within an approved layout. From that date, a self-contained single residential unit outside a residential complex was exempt. Separately contracted houses on demarcated plots do not become part of a residential complex solely because they share gates or amenities; agreements, title documents and approved plans are material. Abatement for residential flats depends on the applicable notification and conditions: 67% for April to June 2010, 75% for July 2010 to June 2012, and the prescribed rate thereafter. Consolidated consideration for a flat and an undivided land interest need not separately allocate the land value; unit specifications require verification.

Proposed accused persons are not ordinarily entitled to a prior hearing before a writ court directs registration and investigation of a case. The statutory safeguard for public servants governing a Magistrate's complaint procedure does not automatically create that right in writ proceedings based on information from a statutory agency. A direction to investigate does not determine guilt, which remains for investigation and, if applicable, trial. Under the applicable High Court Writ Rules, review is available in criminal writ petitions on Code of Civil Procedure grounds; statutory bars on criminal courts reviewing judgments do not curtail writ jurisdiction. Recall may also be available in appropriate circumstances. The State may withdraw its own challenge despite a change of government, but should not change its position merely to serve political interests.

Money-laundering proceedings linked solely to a scheduled offence cannot survive the quashing of the predicate criminal case and its consequential proceedings. Proceeds of crime are property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The linked money-laundering proceedings and their consequential proceedings may be revived if the predicate proceedings are revived.

Pre-existing, plausible and non-illusory disputes over operational debt require rejection of an operational creditor's insolvency application. A late or absent reply to a demand notice does not prevent the debtor from relying on evidence of an earlier dispute. A holding response withholding admission of the demand may constitute notice of dispute even without specific details. The dispute must be supported by evidence, but its likely success need not be determined. Relevant communications may concern outstanding credit notes, detention and demurrage charges, reconciliation and the amount payable, provided they relate to the transactions underlying the claim.

Recall jurisdiction does not permit a rehearing on the merits or a fresh substantive declaration. A remand for reconsideration of a resolution plan does not itself set aside a provisional attachment or determine an enforcement authority's rights where those matters have not been adjudicated. The availability of a statutory appeal and the absence of a challenge to subsequent plan approval are relevant to the recall question. An approved resolution plan that remains unchallenged acquires finality.

The MSME revival framework requires a borrower seeking its benefit to substantiate MSME status and invoke the prescribed procedure. A belated claim without registration evidence or a prescribed application does not bar insolvency proceedings based on established debt and default exceeding the statutory threshold. Debt acknowledgments and settlement proposals admitting liability are relevant to assessing limitation for an insolvency application.

In a creditor's application to initiate insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, objections to the creditor's locus, maintainability and limitation are adjudicated under Section 100, after appointment of a resolution professional. The resolution professional examines the application and submits a recommendatory report; the adjudicating authority then determines whether to accept or reject the application. The procedure for a debtor's application under Section 94 is distinct.

An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lies against an order imposing punishment for contempt, not against dismissal of a contempt petition where no punishment has been imposed. Section 425 of the Companies Act attracts the Contempt of Courts Act, including its appellate provision. Contempt punishment requires deliberate disobedience to be established beyond doubt. In a dispute over company bank accounts, the transactions were attributed to post-dated cheques already held by the applicant; neither their issuance after the direction nor their encashment or withdrawal was established.

Related-party status alone does not justify rejecting a declared customs transaction value; evidence must show that the relationship influenced the import price. Customs valuation methods must be applied sequentially, starting with transaction value and comparable-goods methods before later methods are used. Prices of identical or similar goods imported from unrelated suppliers had been accepted. Where no influence on the prices of the imports in question was demonstrated, the declared values were accepted and the differential duty demand, confiscation and penalties were set aside.

Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires reasonable belief based on objective material available at seizure; unexplained possession and the purity of unmarked gold do not, by themselves, establish that belief. Without reasonable belief, the burden under Section 123 does not shift to the possessor, and the Department remains responsible for proving foreign origin and smuggling. Uncorroborated retracted statements cannot alone establish the smuggled character of unmarked gold, and reliance on statements requires compliance with Section 138B. Confiscation and penalties cannot be sustained without proof of smuggling.

Court-directed cash deposits made towards prospective customs duty before assessment are not payments of customs duty, so the statutory limitation for duty refunds does not apply. A bank guarantee securing the release of goods is also not a payment of customs duty. The depositor is entitled to a refund of the cash deposit with applicable interest from the date of deposit until refund.

Revenue bears the burden of displacing an importer's brown rice protein powder classification and cannot substitute assumptions for an unrebutted technical opinion identifying cereal proteins. HSN notes distinguish cereal proteins from textured protein substances; the stated 90% protein content for vegetable isolates is not a mandatory threshold for cereal proteins. The classification analysis favours tariff item 3504 0099, although tariff item 2106 1000 is also identified. Rule 3 favours a specific description, while Rule 4 applies only if earlier rules do not determine classification. Foreign customs rulings are not binding under Indian customs law. Extended limitation is unavailable where the classification is disclosed and no suppression or wilful misstatement occurs. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are unsustainable where the goods are unavailable and the dispute involves no incorrect description or valuation or bad faith.

Two-ton split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit fall under tariff item 8415 82 10. In tariff classification, a specific entry takes precedence over a generic entry when both describe the goods. The tariff distinguishes split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit from those without one, making that feature relevant to the applicable entry.

The extended limitation period under the Customs Act, 1962 requires circumstances such as collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Prior departmental knowledge of the nature and description of imported goods, followed by inaction within the normal limitation period, does not justify invoking the extended period in the absence of those circumstances. A wholly time-barred show cause notice raises a threshold jurisdictional question, and an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be cured on appeal.

Personal penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 require mens rea and a positive, deliberate act of abetment that renders goods liable to confiscation. In the context of fraudulent exports, negligence or administrative oversight by customs officers alone does not establish the penal abetment necessary for imposing personal penalties.

Interest on a refunded customs investigation deposit treated as a pre-deposit runs from the date of deposit at the 6% rate prescribed by the applicable statutory notifications. A statutory tribunal cannot award a higher rate in excess of those notifications or exercise the writ jurisdiction available to High Courts. Interest therefore cannot be enhanced to 12% in these circumstances.

Under the Customs Act, an importer seeking a countervailing duty refund bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that the duty was passed on to customers. Invoices showing no recovery of the duty, balance sheets and a chartered accountant's certificate supported by accounting records can rebut that presumption, permitting payment of the refund. Failure to claim the duty as expenditure does not, by itself, prove that its burden was passed on. The applicable Board circular supports reliance on the certificate, particularly alongside books of account, and the certificate cannot be disregarded contrary to that circular.

Departmental instructions prescribe monetary limits for appeals before the High Court, with exceptions including classification and refund issues of a legal or recurring nature. The amount involved was not claimed to exceed the prescribed threshold, and classification was neither pleaded nor argued. The appeals remain pending, and their maintainability has not been finally determined.

Receipts from property held under trust and incidental activities do not, by their existence or quantum alone, establish commercial activity under the proviso to section 2(15) and section 13(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The nature of the activities, the trust's dominant purpose and application of income are relevant to charitable exemption. Section 11(2) permits accumulation for charitable purposes subject to prescribed requirements. Late filing of Form 10 is not necessarily fatal when it is available before assessment is completed; the form need not separately particularise every charitable object or proposed expenditure.

For rent-controlled premises, reasonable expected rent under section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot exceed standard rent plus permissible statutory increases. The assessing officer must determine standard rent even if it has not previously been fixed. Section 23(1)(b) applies where actual rent received or receivable exceeds reasonable expected rent. The rate offered for a vacant floor cannot be mechanically applied to floors occupied by protected tenants. The tenanted floors are subject to rent control: registered instruments recorded tenancy continuity and transfers, the premises were in an area covered by Schedule I to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and no statutory exemption was established.