The petitioners, the Union of India and others, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment dated 5 November 2024 of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 10940 of 2023. The dispute arose out of a contractual arrangement involving M/s HCC VCCL Joint Venture and issues related to tax liability under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court had granted relief to the respondent in respect of the contested demand and related proceedings, prompting the Union to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the petition but declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s judgment. It held that no ground was made out to warrant the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Court, however, clarified that the question of law, if any, arising from the case was kept open for future consideration.Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed along with all pending applications.

The petitioner challenged adjudication and appellate orders passed pursuant to scrutiny proceedings for FY 2018-19. The factual background showed that the petitioner had submitted multiple replies and documents to the show cause notice issued in Form DRC-01. However, the authorities proceeded to pass adverse orders without granting an effective opportunity of hearing and without properly considering the material placed on record.The Court held that failure to afford an effective opportunity of hearing and non-consideration of replies amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass fresh orders after granting due opportunity to the petitioner.

The petitioner, Kundan Singh, was accused of offences under Sections 132(1) (a), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged tax evasion amounting to ₹13.73 crore. He was arrested on 27 March 2025. During the bail proceedings before the Madras High Court, his counsel voluntarily offered to deposit ₹2.50 crore, out of which ₹50 lakh was to be paid before release and the balance ₹2 crore within ten days thereafter. Based on this undertaking, the High Court granted bail on 8 May 2025.Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the bail condition, citing personal and family circumstances. On 14 May 2025, the High Court modified its earlier order, permitting the entire deposit to be made within ten days from release but warned that non-compliance would automatically cancel the bail. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that such a monetary condition was onerous and that his counsel had no authority to make the initial offer.The Supreme Court held that while courts must avoid imposing onerous bail conditions, it could not permit parties to misuse the judicial process by first offering monetary deposits to secure bail and later retracting those undertakings. The Court observed that the petitioner had voluntarily offered to deposit the amount, and no claim of lack of authority was raised during the modification proceedings. It found that the conduct of approbating and reprobating undermined judicial sanctity.Accordingly, both the original bail order dated 8 May 2025 and the modification order dated 14 May 2025 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Madras High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application on merits, uninfluenced by previous observations. Interim protection from surrender was granted to the petitioner until the High Court’s decision after remand.

The petitioners, the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) and another authority, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 26 November 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15972 of 2024. The High Court had granted relief to the respondent, Super Products, in relation to proceedings initiated under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 involving alleged irregularities in tax credit and compliance. The petitioners sought to contest the High Court’s findings, asserting procedural and jurisdictional errors in its order.The Supreme Court, after hearing the Additional Solicitor General representing the petitioners, found no grounds to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court condoned the delay in filing the petition but dismissed the SLP, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision.All pending applications, including those for condonation of delay and interim relief, were also disposed of in view of the dismissal of the main petition.

The appellant, Hyeoksoo Son, representing Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd., challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 19 February 2024, which had quashed criminal proceedings and the charge sheet in C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 arising out of Crime No. 287 of 2022 at Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The case involved allegations of financial fraud and criminal breach of trust by company officials and external advisors.The complaint alleged that the company, on the advice of N.K. Associates, transferred over ₹10.18 crore purportedly towards GST payments, which were instead diverted to entities controlled by the accused. An internal inquiry revealed that no GST liability existed and that the funds were misappropriated. The accused included Nikhil K.S., Ritesh Merugu, Vinay Babu Venugopal, and Anushka Singh. The respondent, Moon June Seok, a company executive, was also implicated for having allegedly received ₹1.8 crore in cash from a co-accused.The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the respondent was only a forwarding agent without a substantive role in the misappropriation. It found no prima facie evidence against him and accepted his explanation regarding the money as personal transactions.The Supreme Court, however, held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the sufficiency of evidence at the pre-trial stage. The Court observed that both the respondent and co-accused had given corroborative statements acknowledging the transfer of ₹1.8 crore, thereby indicating a prima facie link. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it ruled that quashing was unjustified when material evidence required trial examination.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 to the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court on 16 April 2025.