1. SC Quashes Tata Steel’s GST Notice for Misuse of Section 74

The Supreme Court quashed a GST show-cause notice against Tata Steel issued under Section 74 CGST Act, holding the Department invoked “fraud,” “willful misstatement,” or “suppression” merely to extend the limitation period without setting out foundational facts in the notice itself. Justices Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran held such words cannot be mechanically recited to bypass the ordinary Section 73 mechanism, and satisfaction of extended limitation requires evident application of mind, not lip service. (Tata Steel Ltd v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 920)

2. P&H HC Summons DGP Over Non-Cooperation of Witnesses in NDPS Trials

The Punjab and Haryana High Court summoned the Director General of Police (Law and Order) after noting official witnesses, mostly police personnel, routinely skip NDPS trial hearings despite bailable and non-bailable warrants. Justice Sumeet Goel called this a “deeply disturbing and systemic lapse” that stalls trials indefinitely, violating the accused’s Article 21 right to a speedy trial and undermining criminal justice administration. (Naseeb Singh v. State of Punjab, 2026)

3. Delhi Court Directs Police to Place BNSS Notice on Record in Ajeet Bharti Case


YouTuber Ajeet Bharti sought anticipatory bail in an SC/ST Act FIR over remarks made during a YouTube broadcast, with his counsel arguing the allegations don’t constitute an offence and that no Section 35(3) BNSS notice was served. ASJ Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler directed that any such notice issued by the Investigating Officer be placed before the Court, to examine its timing and the prima facie satisfaction regarding SC/ST Act ingredients.

4. SC: Resisting Medical Exam Doesn’t Amount to Obstructing Public Servant

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Sections 186/189 IPC and Sections 110/117 of the Maharashtra Police Act against a woman who initially resisted a police medical examination but later underwent it. The Court held her conduct didn’t amount to “voluntarily obstructing” a public servant under Section 186 IPC, and that the MP Act provisions on indecent behaviour or breach of peace were also not attracted to the facts alleged. (Ashwini Anantrao Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra, 2026)

5. Delhi HC Refers Territorial Jurisdiction Questions to Larger Bench

The Delhi High Court referred key jurisdictional questions to a Larger Bench, cautioning that the internet cannot dilute territorial jurisdiction principles to let corporations sue anywhere without a genuine cause of action. Justice Bhambhani flagged the need to harmonise Section 20 CPC with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, citing conflicting rulings on online infringement and corporate residence creating jurisdictional uncertainty. (Hindustan Unilever Ltd v. Kwick Living, 2026:DHC:7198)