The Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan observed that under Section 62(2) of the IBC, an appeal must be filed within 45 days with a maximum extension of 15 days. The court explained that the delay in the present case was far beyond the statutory limit and could not be condoned.

In view of this, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. It also directed that all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

The High Court, in its May 2025 ruling, noted that the Assessing Officer had failed to properly examine the agreement with Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management. Instead, the AO reiterated prior findings without fresh analysis, leading to a flawed final assessment order. The high court found no wrong in the ITAT’s factual findings and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

Based on a special leave petition filed by the revenue, the Supreme Court, led by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, condoned the delay in filing but declined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, effectively closing the matter. The ₹75.66 crore addition to Coursera’s income for AY 2020-21 now stands nullified.

Suspended Director’s Writ Dismissed Despite Settlement Claim: Bombay HC Affirms IRP Sole Authority and Remitted Matter to NCLT Vishal Ganpat Shinde vs Unionof India CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 505

After hearing the submission, the division bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat held that the NCLT’s order suffered from procedural irregularity and breach of natural justice. The Court noted that “The petitioner was vitally interested, having paid substantial amounts to settle the dispute. The NCLT could not have passed the impugned order behind his back.”

The court observed that Rule 34(4) and Rule 37 of the NCLT Rules mandate service of notice and application copies to all concerned parties. It found that neither the suspended director nor the financial creditor received such notice. The High Court set aside the NCLT’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing that all parties be duly served and heard. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to the remedy of appeal before the NCLAT.

While the Board dismissed the case as "family-related," the Court noted they failed to address the actual substance of these professional red flags.

The Court said that “There is no such prohibition to entertain a complaint at the instance of spouse, if it discloses professional misconduct. The complaint must have been taken to its logical conclusion by assigning appropriate reasons which has not been done in the instant case. The only reason that the complaint relates to a family dispute cannot be countenanced, when the allegations are made against the Chartered Accountant for violation of statutory norms.”

The Board of Discipline, while disagreeing with the Director’s prima facie opinion, is obligated to provide clear and cogent reasons, said the bench. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court scrapped the Board’s previous decision and sent the case back to the ICAI. The institute has been ordered to take the complaint afresh after providing hearing opportunities and as per law.

Bombay HC Refuses NIL TDS Certificate to Chinese Firm as Prior Years’ Taxability Dispute Pending Before ITAT

Benteler Automative (China) Investment Limited vsAssistant Commissioner of Income-tax (IT) CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 507

In a recent ruling, the BombayHigh Court refused to grant a NIL withholding tax certificate to a Chinese company on the ground that the issue of taxability of the payments received from its Indian subsidiary was already decided against it in earlier assessment years and the matter is currently pending before the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

The Division Bench comprising Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar observed that the contention of the revenue that virtual services amount to physical rendition of services in India was not acceptable. The court observed that merely because services are rendered through video conferencing or emails does not mean that they are physically rendered in India, and such an assumption would be too broad.

The court explained that granting a NIL withholding tax certificate in such circumstances would directly contradict the findings of higher authorities in earlier years which have not yet been set aside. It also pointed out that the certificate under Section 197 is based on estimated tax liability and must align with the existing position of law as applied to the assessee. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

GST Cancellation Can Be Reconsidered If Taxpayer Files Pending Returns And Pays Dues: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court heard a matter cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration could be reconsidered if the petitioner files pending returns and pays the dues.

The High Court took into observation Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and noted the resolution of the issue as mentioned in sub-rule (4). The respondent authorities were, therefore, asked to reconsider their position if the petitioner complies with the payment of pending liabilities inclusive of tax, penalty, interest and late fee.

Justice Anjan Moni Kalita disposed of the petition condoning the delay but noting its non-applicability as precedent.

Rajasthan HC Directs Refund of Additional 6% GST to Contractor, Holds Denial by State Corp Arbitrary & Discriminatory

M/s N.G. Gadhiya vs State Of Rajasthan CITATION: 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 509

In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court directed refund of additional 6% GST to a contractor and held that denial of such benefit by a State Government undertaking was arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly when similar benefits were being extended to other contractors under government departments.

The Single Judge Bench comprising Ganesh Ram Meena observed that the contract itself incorporated various government rules and circulars, which indicates that the Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules are applicable to the contracts executed by RSRDCC.

The court observed that Clause 36E clearly provides for adjustment of contract price in case of change in tax rates during performance of the contract, and such benefit must be extended to the contractor. The court also observed that other government entities were granting such benefit and denial by RSRDCC to the petitioner is discriminatory and violates Article 14.

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the differential 6% GST. The impugned letter was quashed and the respondents were directed to refund the amount along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim. The writ petition was allowed.

Wrongly Availed GST ITC Reversed before SCN was Issued: Delhi HC Quashes Demand Orders and Remands Matter

M/S HARSH KHANNA AND SONS HUF vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2026 TAXS CAN (HC) 510

The Delhi High Court recently quashed Goodsand Services Tax (GST) demand orders raised against an assessee for wrongly availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) in their GSTR-3B in comparison to ITC available as per GSTR-2A. The High Court noted that the disputed ITC had already been reversed prior to the issuance of the show cause notice (SCN).

The Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul noted that this contention had been raised before the appellate authority but was rejected earlier for want of documentary evidence. However, following the Revenue’s confirmation before the High Court, the reversal of ITC stood confirmed.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, directing that the issue be re-examined in light of the confirmed position regarding prior reversal of ITC.

Export Benefits cannot be Denied for Want of BOE alone: Delhi HC says Collateral Evidence of EO Discharge Sufficient

The Delhi High Court has ruled that export benefits under the EPCG Scheme cannot be denied just because the Bill of Export (BOE) is missing. The court said that if there is clear "collateral evidence" proving the goods were actually exported, such evidence is sufficient.

The Court went through the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and decided that since the goods did not technically leave the country but were sent to an SEZ, they qualified as "deemed exports." Because they fell into this category, the invoices and bank records Holoflex provided were more than enough to satisfy the rules.

Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla also noted that, while SEZs are legally treated as being "outside" India's customs territory for certain tax reasons, the bench clarified that this "legal fiction" should not be used to strip away an exporter's hard-earned incentives. Further, the definition of “export” under the SEZ Act was held to be confined to that statute and not determinative of entitlement under the FTP framework. The high court also noted that the FTP and HBP constitute a self-contained code governing export incentives. Once the transaction satisfies the criteria of “deemed exports” under Para 8.1, compliance with Para 5.13(b) is sufficient.

Karnataka HC sets aside GST ITC Demand for Ignoring Mandatory Reconciliation Procedure under CBIC Circular

GANGES INTERNATIONAL P. LTD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFTAX OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 512

In a recent case involving the ignorance of mandatory reconciliation procedure mentioned in the CBIC ( Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ) circular, the KarnatakaHigh Court set aside the GST( Goods and Services Tax ) ITC (Input Tax Credit) demand.

The Single bench of S. Sunil Dutt Yadav noted that the GST authorities did not try to deny that they had skipped the reconciliation step.

Because of this procedural "miss," the Court set aside the original tax demand and sent the whole case back to the SCN stage.

The court said that “The contention regarding non-following of the procedure does not appear to be controverted. In light of the same, it would be appropriate taking note of the order making detailed reference to wrongful availment of ITC, to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-A and remit the matter for reconsideration while observing that the mismatch between ITC availed in Form GSTR 3B as compared to the details in Form GSTR 2A is to be permitted to be reconciled in terms of the procedure prescribed in the Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022.”

The bench ordered that matter to be proceeded for reconsideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

Madras HC Excuses 247-Day COVID-Linked Delay, Restores Appeal in ₹7.5 Lakh Service Tax Case

The Commissioner (Appeals) Office of the Commissioner ofGST vs A.Mahalingam CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 513

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a 247-day delay in filing a service tax appeal, citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and invoking a special Goods and Services Tax (GST)notification to restore the appeal, which had been dismissed for exceeding the condonable limit, and directed the tax authorities to hear the case on merits.

After hearing the submission, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy took note of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, issued on 2 November 2023, which allowed certain appeals filed beyond the usual time frame to be treated as valid due to pandemic disruptions.

The court observed that “In view of the peculiar and special circumstances prevailing in the present case, I am of the view that the delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal ought to be considered on merits.”

The Court set aside the impugned appellate order and directed the appellate authority to hear the petitioner's case on the merits. It also ordered the lifting of the freeze on his bank account, noting that the entire tax liability had already been discharged.

Service Tax Demand Based on CBDT Inputs & ITR Data Without Proper Hearing: Karnataka HC Remands Matter

M/S DIRT MANIA OUTDOOR ADVENTURES PVT. LTD vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 514

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru held that since the service tax was charged based on Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) inputs and income tax return data, there had been a lack of fair opportunity given to the petitioner to be heard and thus ordered for reconsideration.

The Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition by remanding it to the stage of reply to the show cause notice but had outlined the issues that the concerned authorities should look into, including qualification under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act and whether claims are barred by limitation. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav also made note of the fact that the copy of the show cause notice was not communicated to the petitioner, and the same is to be furnished to the petitioner.

Dept. cannot Keep Credit Ledger Blocked Beyond One Year for Alleged GST ITC Fraud under Rule 86A(3): Bombay HC

NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 515

The Bombay High Court recently affirmed that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department cannot continue blocking an assessee’s electronic credit ledger beyond the statutory period of one year as prescribed under Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules, even in cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment of InputTax Credit (ITC).

The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe categorically rejected the contentions of the Department, observing that Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules unequivocally mandates that the restriction on the electronic credit ledger cannot continue beyond one year from the date of imposition.

Regarding the contentions on the cancellation of GST registration, it was clarified that any probable consequences arising out of cancellation of registration, including issues relating to eligibility or utilization of credit, would have to be dealt with in accordance with the provision of the GST Act and Rules.

GST Payer fails to Reply to SCN on Wrongful Availment of ITC: Karnataka HC remits Matter to stage of SCN

M/S B S BURRAQ ALUMIN ALLOYS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM vs THECOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 516

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru set aside an order and remitted the matter as the confirmed order ignored the non-participation of the petitioner, in the proceedings for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The High Court deemed it proper to set aside the confirmed order due to the non-participation of the petitioner.

The court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav remitted the matter to be heard before the bench of the Commissioner of Central Tax on 22.04.2026.

PAN Transfer Changes Jurisdiction Mid-Proceedings: Karnataka HC Orders Bangalore PCIT to Decide Condonation Plea on Merits

M/S. GLADIATOR COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 517

The Karnataka High Court held that a change in PAN ( Permanent Accountant Number) jurisdiction during the pendency of proceedings cannot defeat a taxpayer’s claim. The court ordered Bangalore PCIT to which the PAN has transferred to decide the condonation plea.

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that the representation filed by the petitioner was a request for condonation of delay, which is to be adjudicated by the competent authority under Section 119(2)(b).

Once the PAN stood transferred to Bengaluru, the jurisdictional authority competent to decide the matter was the PCIT at Bengaluru. Therefore, the earlier rejection on jurisdictional grounds could no longer be sustained.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Bengaluru PCIT to consider and decide the petitioner’s condonation application in accordance with law.

S. 80P Deduction Denied for Delay: Madras HC Directs to Seek Condonation u/s 119(2)(b) alongside Filing Appeals

Ramarajapuram Primary Agricultural vs Assistant Directorof Income Tax CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 519

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has granted one more opportunity to the cooperative society which was denied the Section 80P deduction due to late filing of the Income Tax Returns ( ITR ). It allowed to to seek condonation under Section 119(2) of the income tax act, 1961 alongwith filing appeals.

While the High Court understood the practical issues co-operative societies face, it said that tax deadlines under Section 80AC are mandatory and cannot be ignored.

With regards to the practical issues, the court commented that “Insofar as Co-operative Societies are concerned, this Court has, in earlier instances, issued directions to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to ensure that such societies have adequate expert guidance in matters relating to taxation, both direct and indirect. Issuance of Circulars alone would not suffice.” “Qualified personnel with requisite expertise must be engaged for each Co-operative Society, and a proper supervisory mechanism must be put in place to ensure periodic compliance, including timely filing of returns. The said directions are reiterated herein” added the bench.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to file detailed applications before the competent authority seeking condonation of delay, clearly explaining the reasons for delay, including audit timelines and procedural constraints. The authority was directed to consider such applications on merits, taking into account the nature of the petitioner as a co-operative credit society.

Tax Dues already Paid must be Considered while Computing Liability under SVLDRS: Madras HC quashes SVLDRS-3

Opal Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs The Designated Committeeunder the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 519

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently clarified that tax dues that are already -paid by an assessee must be duly and wholly accounted for while computing liability under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The Court accordingly quashed an impugned statement issued in Form SVLDRS-3 alleging the Assessee’s failure to do so.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the Department did not dispute the deposits made by the petitioner, but since the payments were made under different heads such as interest and other deposits, the same were not taken into account while computing the amount payable under the scheme. The department’s counter affidavit further highlighted difficulties with their software system, stating that such entries are irreversible and irretrievable in nature.

Justice Chakravarthy noted that software difficulties are purely procedural and hyper-technical in nature, and cannot hinder the SVLDRS’ objective of resolving legacy disputes and effectuating recovery of dues while granting relief to the declarant. Further noting that the petitioner had deposited an amount that was nearly 100% of the actual dues payable, the Court held they were clearly entitled to relief sought for in the writ petition.

2 Kg Gold Hidden in Waist Belt: Calcutta HC Upholds Confiscation, Rejects ‘Town Seizure’ Defence

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA vs SHRI ANILKUMAR SONI CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 521

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court upheld the confiscation of nearly 2 kg of gold hidden in a specially stitched waist belt and rejected the defence of “town seizure,” holding that suspicious conduct and scientific evidence were sufficient to establish reasonable belief of smuggling.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar observed that the concept of “town seizure” cannot invalidate a seizure when the conduct of the person clearly indicates illegal activity. It explained that hiding gold in a waist belt is a strong circumstance that can lead a prudent officer to form a reasonable belief of smuggling.

On the issue of confession, the court observed that statements recorded under Section 108 are admissible and carry evidentiary value. It pointed out that the retraction made after about 850 days was not reliable and appeared to be an afterthought.

The court set aside the Tribunal’s order and restored the confiscation of the gold along with penalties imposed on the respondents. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.

GST ITC Reversal During Inspection Not Voluntary: Karnataka HC Allows GST Proceedings to be Revived Despite Setting Aside Closure

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (HPU) CGST COMMISSIONERATE vsM/S. KUM INTERNATIONALS CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 522

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court held that reversal of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) made during inspection cannot be treated as voluntary in certain circumstances, while also allowing the tax authorities to revive proceedings despite setting aside the closure order.

The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind observed that a mere allegation of coercion is not sufficient and must be supported by surrounding circumstances. It pointed out that the assessee had not lodged any complaint for a considerable period, which raises doubt about the claim of coercion.

The court explained that if a closure under Section 74(6) is set aside on the ground of involuntary payment, the proceedings must be restored to the stage before such closure, so that the Revenue is not deprived of its right to initiate adjudication under Section 73 or 74 of the GST Act.

The court modified the Single Judge's order and allowed the Revenue to proceed under the relevant provisions of the Act. It also directed that the period from 11 June 2024 till the date of judgment shall be excluded for limitation. The appeals were partly allowed.

No Evidence of Sister Concern Stock: Madras HC confirms VAT Demand on Stock Variation

Tvl. Jayalakshmi Traders vs The State of Tamilnadu CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 523

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld a VAT ( Value Added Tax ) demand linked to stock discrepancies ruling that simple claims regarding a sister concern's ownership of stock, if not backed by evidence, cannot override the factual findings of tax authorities.

The Court said that a partner of the firm was present during the inspection and had countersigned the records. And if there are any concerns, petitioner could have raised the issue from there itself, said the bench.

Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan noting the discrepancy allegations said that “except for the ipse dixit of the petitioner, no other material was available to substantiate the stand taken by the petitioner.” Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere under its revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the revision petition.

Income Tax Dept Fails to Serve Notice before Reassessment: Orissa HC Remands Matter for Fresh

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted that the language of Section 148 uses the term “shall serve,” which denotes a compulsory obligation. Citing precedents including Bank of India v. Nangli Rice Mills, the Court said that procedural compliance is not a mere formality but a statutory safeguard.

The bench also observed that the reassessment was initiated mainly based on information from the Investigation Wing without any independent inquiry, and the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings until his property was attached in May 2025. Given these lapses, the Court concluded that the reassessment order dated 14.11.2017 and the ₹47.45 lakh demand notice were vitiated.

Interest on Customs Refund Not Automatic: Delhi HC Differentiates Based on Delay in Processing

The Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that reassessment of Bills of Entry is a necessary step before grant of refund and is governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

The court explained that interest is compensatory and becomes payable when delay is attributable to the department. It pointed out that in certain cases, refunds were granted within three months of application and hence no interest was payable. At the same time, the court observed that in other cases there was significant delay by the department in deciding reassessment applications and processing refunds. It explained that such delay cannot deprive the petitioners of interest.

The court held that in cases where refund was granted within the statutory period, no interest would be payable. In cases where delay in reassessment and refund was attributable to the department, the petitioners were entitled to interest. The court directed the department to pay interest in such cases from the date of filing of the reassessment application till the date of refund, within a period of three months. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.

GST Authorities Must Give Full 15-Day Period to File Reply as u/R 93(2): Calcutta HC Invalidates

The Calcutta High Court ruled that the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) authorities must grant taxpayers the complete statutory period of 15 days to respond to show-cause notices related to tax refunds as mandated under Rule 93(2) of GST Rules.

The bench of Justice Kausik Chanda, by invalidating a refund rejection order, said that the department ignored this required time limit.The bench noted that the petitioner requested for adjournment and the refund rejection order was passed without affording an opportunity to submit his reply within the fifteen-day period mandated under Rule 92(3) of the GST Rules, 2017.

The court set aside the rejection order and directed the department to grant a fresh hearing, ensuring a 15 days time period to file a reply. Additionally, the Court said that the date for the next hearing must be communicated to the petitioner at least 72 hours in advance.

Bombay HC cancels GST order Issued before Hearing, Matter remanded for Fresh Decision.

The division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe found merit in the petitioner’s contention. While referring to the concluding paragraphs of the notice, the Court noted that the petitioners were clearly directed to appear on 22.04.2022 and submit their reply in FORM GST DRC-06.

high court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the State Tax Officer for fresh proceedings in accordance with law, including a proper hearing. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within three months. The Court also clarified that any recovery action based on the quashed order shall not be given effect.

Transit State Cannot Detain Goods Moving Between Two Other States in IGST Movement: AP HC

The court explained that powers under Sections 129 and 130 can be exercised only by a proper officer having jurisdiction and pointed out that in cases of inter-State movement with no nexus to the transit State, “the state officer would have to permit the vehicle to continue its journey.”

The court accordingly set aside the proceedings initiated under Sections 129 and 130 against the petitioners and directed release of the goods while permitting the authorities to forward any discrepancies to the appropriate jurisdictional officers for further action.

Valuation Issues Alone Not Valid Grounds for Detention of Goods in Transit in IGST Movement: AP HC

The court set aside the proceedings initiated under Sections 129 and 130 against the petitioners and directed release of the goods while leaving it open to the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law through the proper jurisdictional officers.

Govt Cannot Encash ₹7,16,346 SAIL/DSP Guarantee After Expiry Without Defects or Prior Notice: Calcutta HC

The bench, Justice Krishna Rao observed that “This Court finds that the respondents after the period of two years three months, trying to invoke the Bank Guarantee without any justification, though there is no allegation upon the petitioners that the work executed by the petitioners is defective or has not complied with the terms and conditions of the contract”

The court held that the act of the respondent authorities for invoking the Bank Guarantee of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal, and therefore, the Court quashed the letter dated 23 March 2026 issued to Punjab National Bank directing encashment of the ₹7.16 lakh guarantee.

9100g Ganja Seized by Customs at Hyderabad Airport: Telangana HC grants Bail in NDPS Case on Rs. 25k Bond

Cherupallikal Nineesh vs The State of Customs(Preventive) CITATION: 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 530

In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court granted bail to an accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case involving the seizure of 9100 grams of ganja at Hyderabad airport.

After considering both sides the high court observed that “Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and perusal of the material on record, the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 08.03.2026 and as seen from the record the contraband seized from the possession of the petitioners is 9100 grams and according to the respondents, no other cases pending against the petitioner.”

The bench justice K. Sujana granted bail subject to conditions including a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties, weekly appearances before the authorities for eight weeks, and compliance with Section 480(3) of BNSS. Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed and miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.

Justice Kausik Chanda was of the view that the procedure adopted was improper as personal hearing opportunity was provided for only in the appellate stage, which is in violation of proper adjudication in compliance with Section 75(4). Thus, the court remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently granted regular bail to those accused of orchestrating a fraudulent Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) considering the custodial time.

The Court observed that because the case is built on documents already in the possession of investigators, the risk of the accused interfering with the process was diminished.

While the Court did not rule on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the applicant, it allowed the bail application, ordering Singh’s release upon the submission of a ₹1,00,000 personal bond and a solvent surety.