Taxation Law - CGST – Section 6(2)(b) – Issuance of Summons – Scope of “Proceedings” – Petition Dismissed – The Supreme Court held that issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act is only an inquiry mechanism and cannot be equated with initiation of “proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b). Proceedings commence only upon issuance of a show cause notice. The Court further clarified that “subject matter” refers to the tax liability or contravention alleged in a show cause notice, not issues raised in summons. Dismissing the petition, the Court upheld the validity of summons and issued guidelines to prevent overlapping investigations by State and Central authorities [Paras 56-62, 74, 78-90, 96-100].

Meaning of “Proceedings” – Limited to Show Cause Notice and Adjudication – “Proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b) refer only to adjudicatory steps beginning with show cause notice, not searches, seizures, or summons – Evidence gathering does not constitute “proceedings” – This interpretation avoids undermining cross-empowerment under GST [Paras 55-67, 72-73].

Subject Matter – Interpretation – “Subject matter” in Section 6(2)(b) equates to the tax liability, deficiency, or contravention alleged in a show cause notice – It must be ascertained from charges and reliefs sought in the notice, not from summons – Overlap arises only when both authorities pursue identical liability or contravention [Paras 78-90].

Cross-Empowerment under GST – Enforcement Powers – Both Central and State authorities are empowered to conduct intelligence-based enforcement actions irrespective of administrative assignment – The authority initiating enforcement must carry the matter to its logical conclusion – Circular dated 05.10.2018 clarifies this principle – Parallel inquiries not barred unless they crystallize into identical show cause proceedings [Paras 34-50, 75-77].

Guidelines – Avoiding Duplication – Court issued directions: taxpayers must comply with summons and inform about existing proceedings; authorities must coordinate to avoid overlap; if overlap exists, one authority should proceed and the other must transfer materials; if dispute remains, the first initiating authority proceeds – Taxpayers may approach High Courts if duplication persists [Para 97].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Summons issued under Section 70 held valid – High Court’s view upheld – Petition dismissed with guidelines to ensure coordination between authorities and prevent multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 96-100].

Appeal challenging post-disposal directions issued by the Court permitting non-signatories to arbitration agreement to participate in arbitral proceedings, despite their exclusion by earlier judicial orders.

Criminal Bail Law - Bail Granted to Accused in Brutal Murder Case Set Aside – Serious Offences, Abscondence, and Witness Intimidation Ignored – Judicial Discretion Misapplied – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant against the Delhi High Court's order granting regular bail to accused Sushil Kumar, a renowned wrestler, in a case involving abduction, assault, and murder – The Court found that the High Court failed to consider key factors such as the accused’s abscondence, seriousness of allegations under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Arms Act, and a recurring pattern of prosecution witnesses turning hostile during temporary bail – Held: The order granting bail was perverse and devoid of legal justification and thus liable to be set aside [Paras 1-3, 20-27].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction Between Grant and Cancellation – Misapplied Judicial Discretion – The Supreme Court clarified that the appeal concerned the correctness of the bail grant order, not a cancellation post-conduct – Bail granted to the accused was set aside as the High Court failed to consider crucial parameters like abscondence, seriousness of allegations, and the possibility of witness tampering [Paras 14-21].

Prima Facie Material – High Court Erred in Overlooking Evidentiary Details – Charge sheet revealed strong prima facie evidence including video footage, blood-stained weapons, firearms, and MLC/post-mortem confirming brutal assault – Despite these facts, the High Court did not consider the gravity and nature of the offence, rendering its bail order unsustainable [Paras 5-10, 20-23].

Witness Intimidation – Pattern of Hostile Witnesses Linked to Bail Periods – Accused allegedly influenced witnesses while on temporary bail – Out of 35 examined, 28 turned hostile – Although Court refrained from affirming motive, it noted the serious possibility of trial interference justifying denial of bail [Paras 24-25].

Public Influence – Olympian’s Societal Impact Considered – Court acknowledged the accused’s status as a celebrated wrestler and held that his societal influence could not be disregarded in assessing risks of witness coercion and trial delay [Para 24].

Legal Principles – Bail Order Must Reflect Relevant Considerations – A bail order must show application of mind, including factors such as gravity of offence, past conduct, and risk to trial integrity – A perverse or unreasoned order is open to appellate interference – High Court’s order was devoid of such assessment and was thus quashed [Paras 15-19].

Final Decision – Bail Set Aside – Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender within one week – Liberty granted to apply for bail afresh upon change in circumstances – Appeal allowed [Paras 26-27].

Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation by High Court – Section 376 IPC – Anticipatory Bail Restored - The appellant, a practicing advocate, was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 IPC – Later, Section 376 was added only through a statement under Section 164 CrPC – High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail, but Supreme Court found cancellation unwarranted – Held: Order of High Court set aside, anticipatory bail restored [Paras 3-4, 9-11, 16-17].

Delay and Addition of Serious Charge – Victim’s Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Section 376 Allegation Introduced Later - The FIR originally contained no allegation of rape – Allegation under Section 376 was introduced for the first time in the Magistrate’s statement nearly three weeks later – Held: In absence of initial mention in FIR, subsequent addition of serious charges requires careful scrutiny at anticipatory bail stage [Para 9].

Cross-FIR and Counter-Allegations – Mutual Allegations by Parties – Relevance for Bail - The appellant had lodged a counter FIR alleging criminal assault and attempt to murder against the complainant and her husband – The existence of cross-FIRs raised doubts regarding the bona fides of the complaint – Held: Sessions Court rightly considered all circumstances in granting anticipatory bail [Paras 6-8, 14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Anticipatory Bail Restored – Compliance Directed - Supreme Court permitted the appellant to appear before the territorial Sessions Court and furnish bail bonds – Restored the original anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court and nullified High Court’s cancellation order [Paras 16-19].

Criminal Law - Sentence – Life Imprisonment Fixed Term – Section 302 IPC – Sentence Complete – Release Mandated – The appellant was sentenced by the Delhi High Court to life imprisonment which was fixed at 20 years of actual incarceration without consideration of remission, affirmed by the Supreme Court – He completed 20 years of actual imprisonment on 09.03.2025 – Held: On completion of the judicially determined fixed term of 20 years, no further application for remission is required – Appellant entitled to immediate release upon completion of sentence, if not wanted in any other case [Paras 2, 13, 15.2, 15.4, 15.6].

Remission – Not Applicable to Fixed-Term Life Sentence – No Further Application Necessary – A convict serving a fixed-term sentence determined by the constitutional courts as a substitute for death penalty cannot be asked to seek remission after serving the full term – Sentence Review Board has no authority to alter or extend a judicially imposed fixed term sentence – Continued incarceration beyond fixed term without legal sanction violates Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 13, 15.2, 15.4, 15.7].

Remission vs. Completion of Sentence – Distinction Clarified – Remission is a reduction of a sentence before it is fully served and is an executive function – Completion of sentence is a matter of judicial determination when a fixed term is imposed – In the present case, once 20 years without remission was completed, sentence is deemed fully served – No further consideration of remission required [Paras 14–14.7].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 21 – Continued Detention Post-Sentence – Illegal – The Supreme Court held that continuing a convict in jail beyond the completed judicially fixed sentence term violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Administrative delay or technical objections cannot justify continued incarceration [Paras 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7].

Judicial Authority – Fixed Term Sentence – Only Constitutional Courts Can Impose – The judgment reiterates that only the High Courts and the Supreme Court can impose fixed term life sentences that are not subject to remission, under their constitutional and appellate jurisdiction – Other courts or executive authorities cannot alter or extend such sentences [Paras 10.9, 11].

Direction to Authorities – Release of Overdetained Prisoners – Implementation of Judgment – Supreme Court directs circulation of this judgment to all State/UT Home Departments and Legal Services Authorities to ensure that no convict is unlawfully detained beyond their sentence – Appropriate action to be taken for release of such individuals, if not wanted in any other case [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Continued incarceration of the appellant post 09.03.2025 held illegal – He shall not be required to surrender after expiry of his furlough period – Authorities directed to treat his sentence as complete and release him if not wanted in any other case [Paras 15.6, 15.7, 16].

Civil Law - Confiscation of Caste Certificate - Caste Verification – Koli Mahadev Tribe – Pre-Independence Documentary Evidence – Higher Probative Value – Appeal Allowed – The appellant’s caste claim was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court despite producing a 1943 school admission record showing his grandfather’s caste as Koli Mahadev – Held: Pre-Independence records enjoy greater probative value and cannot be discarded on presumptions – The document was found free from interpolation, corroborated by school records of appellant’s father and uncle – Claim upheld and caste validity certificate directed to be issued [Paras 9–12, 16–17].

Affinity Test – Not a Litmus Test – Cannot Solely Determine Caste Status – While the appellant failed the affinity test, the Court reiterated that migration, modernisation, and societal integration may alter traditional traits – Affinity test may corroborate but not override credible documentary evidence – Claim cannot be rejected solely for lack of traditional ethnological traits [Paras 7–8, 13–14].

Evidentiary Principles – Pre-Independence Records – Greater Weight – Court affirmed that documents predating Independence have higher evidentiary value in caste verification – Such records, if credible, should be preferred over post-Independence evidence – Supported by earlier decisions in Anand and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti [Paras 7–8, 15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of the High Court and Scrutiny Committee set aside – Appellant held to belong to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe – Scrutiny Committee directed to issue Caste Validity Certificate within six weeks [Paras 16–17].

Company Law - IBC Appeal – Limitation and Filing Requirements – Section 61(2) IBC and Rule 22(2) NCLAT Rules – Appeal Barred – Respondent No. 1 e-filed appeal before NCLAT on 25.07.2023 without certified copy of impugned order or application for condonation of delay – Certified copy applied for only on 23.08.2023 and delay condonation sought on 22.09.2023 – Limitation commenced from date of pronouncement (23.06.2023) and not date of uploading (26.06.2023) – Held: Appeal defective and barred by limitation, NCLAT erred in ignoring mandatory procedural requirements; its judgment on merits set aside [Paras 5-13].

Judicial Service Law - Appointment of District Judges – Interpretation of Article 233(2) – Reference to Constitution Bench – Civil Appeal and Connected Matters – Multiple petitions sought review/clarification of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401, wherein a three-judge bench held that only persons not in judicial service are eligible for direct recruitment from Bar as District Judges – Petitioners contended that judicial officers with seven years’ Bar practice prior to joining service should also qualify for Bar quota – Supreme Court held that the issue involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation requiring hearing by a Bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3) – Matter referred to Constitution Bench [Paras 1–3, 16–24].

Scope of Article 233(2) – Two Key Questions Identified – (i) Whether judicial officers with seven years’ prior Bar practice can be appointed as Additional District Judges against Bar vacancies, and (ii) Whether eligibility is to be assessed at the time of application or appointment or both – Both held to be substantial questions of constitutional law [Para 23].

Effect of Earlier Precedents – Distinction drawn between present issue and Constitution Bench rulings in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab (1961) 2 SCR 874 and Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1967) 1 SCR 77 – Noted that Dheeraj Mor was decided by three judges despite earlier order indicating reference to Constitution Bench – Such questions under Article 233(2) warrant hearing by five judges [Paras 12–15, 19–21].

Decision – Reference Allowed – Two questions framed and directed to be placed before Constitution Bench of five judges – Registry to place matter before CJI on administrative side – Present petitions to be heard after decision on reference [Para 24].

Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations against Father-in-law – Sections 498A IPC & 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act – Quashing under Article 142 – Appellant, father-in-law of complainant, sought quashing of FIR alleging dowry demand and physical assault – FIR lodged nearly two months after alleged incident and after husband filed divorce petition – Complainant and husband divorced in 2021 – Held: Continuation of proceedings serves no purpose post-divorce; allegations against father-in-law not proximate or specific enough to justify trial – FIR and charge sheet quashed [Paras 22–24, 28, 33–34].

Misuse of Criminal Law in Matrimonial Discord – Judicial Caution – Courts must guard against tendency to implicate all in-laws absent clear role – Reference made to precedents emphasising prevention of abuse of process where allegations are general or motivated – Power under Article 142 may be exercised to bring quietus to stale personal disputes [Paras 25–27, 31–33].

Delay and Conduct – Belated FIR – Alleged slapping and dowry demand at railway station not mentioned during prior counselling sessions; complaint lodged after divorce petition filed – Such conduct undermines credibility of accusations and supports inference of counterblast [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s refusal to quash set aside – FIR No. 58/2019, dated 21.07.2019, and charge sheet quashed qua appellant – Proceedings against father-in-law terminated [Para 34].