Between 24 and 30 August 2026 the Supreme Court of India set aside a show cause notice against Tata Steel under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that the foundational facts of suppression must appear on the notice itself and that an audit objection is no substitute for the proper officer's own satisfaction. In the same week the Mediation Council of India was established and two Presidential Regulations issued under Article 240 of the Constitution of India.
Why This Week Matters for Exam Aspirants
Article 240 appears twice in this week's list, which is unusual enough to be worth a dedicated revision card — it is the provision that lets the President legislate by regulation for a Union territory without a legislature. Two items test the new criminal codes directly: the temporal limits of a preventive order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the ingredients of abetment of suicide now carried in Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The GST item supplies a clean limitation-computation problem of the sort judiciary and tax papers increasingly set.
Key Developments — W35 2026
1. A Section 74 GST Notice Must Carry Foundational Facts, Not Statutory Words
Date: 25 August 2026 | Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India | Citation: M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 920 (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16859 of 2026) | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a show cause notice of 13 June 2025 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for FY 2018-19 to 2020-21, and the order-in-original that followed it, reversing the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
The legal principle: Section 73 governs demands where there is no fraud or suppression; Section 74 extends the period where there is. Section 44 read with Rule 80 of the CGST Rules, 2017 requires the annual return by 31 December following the financial year, extended by notification for these years, so the three-year outer limit in Section 73(10) had expired before the notice issued. Section 73(10) fixes time for the order under Section 73(9), while Section 73(2) independently requires the notice at least three months earlier. Explanation 2 to Section 74 was unavailable, having been omitted with effect from 1 November 2024. Most importantly, proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 may be initiated only on the proper officer's own satisfaction — an audit observation of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not a substitute — and for Section 74 the officer must be satisfied that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression caused the shortfall.
For your exam: Note the reach limits. Sections 73 and 74 govern periods up to and including FY 2023-24; Section 74A, inserted with effect from 1 November 2024, applies from FY 2024-25 onwards. The Court also recorded that GST law contains no device of a "protective demand" issued merely to preserve limitation.
2. Mediation Council of India Established Under Section 31
Date: 27 August 2026 | Court/Authority: Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs | Citation: S.O. 4781(E) | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: The Central Government established the Mediation Council of India by a one-sentence notification issued under Section 31(1) of the Mediation Act, 2023 (32 of 2023), with its head office at Delhi. The Act had received assent on 14 September 2023, so the regulator arrives nearly three years later.
The legal principle: Section 31 requires the Central Government to establish, by notification, a Council which is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, able to hold property and to sue and be sued. Its remit covers registration and regulation of mediators, recognition of mediation service providers and institutes, standards for training and certification, and a depository of mediated settlement agreements. The notification names no Chairperson or Members and notifies no regulations — so the corporate attributes attach on establishment while the regulatory machinery does not yet exist.
For your exam: The Mediation Act, 2023 pairs naturally with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and with pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
3. Presidential Regulation Enables a High Court Bench in Ladakh
Date: 27 August 2026 | Court/Authority: President of India | Citation: The Union territory of Ladakh (Sitting of Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh in Ladakh) Regulation, 2026, Regulation No. 10 of 2026 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: The President promulgated a Regulation providing that judges and division courts of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh may also sit in Ladakh, under Article 240 of the Constitution of India read with Section 58(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, following a Union Cabinet decision of 20 August 2026.
The legal principle: Since the reorganisation took effect on 31 October 2019 the two Union territories have shared a common High Court sitting at Srinagar and Jammu. Ladakh has no legislature and is administered by an Administrator appointed by the President under Article 239. Article 240 supplies the legislative route: a Presidential regulation for a specified Union territory has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament applying to that territory. Section 2(1) preserves the principal seat; Section 2(2) permits sittings at a place in Ladakh appointed by the Chief Justice with the Lieutenant Governor's approval; Section 2(3) preserves the Chief Justice's discretion to route any Ladakh-arising case to Srinagar or Jammu.
For your exam: The Regulation creates a place of sitting, not a separate territorial jurisdiction — so no Ladakh matter has a vested right to be heard there. Commencement depends on a notification by the Administrator under Section 1(3); none had been traced as at 8 September 2026, so the Regulation is on the statute book but not in force.
4. Service Rules Are Not Subordinate to the POSH Act — But Cannot Retaliate
Date: 24 August 2026 | Court/Authority: High Court of Delhi | Citation: IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Sharanjeet Kaur, LPA 38/2026; 2026:DHC:7115-DB | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the Bank's appeal, holding it was not justified in treating the respondent's absence as deemed voluntary cessation of service, while correcting the Single Judge's proposition that service laws are subordinate to the POSH Act.
The legal principle: Section 28 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 provides that the Act is "in addition to and not in derogation of" any other law in force. It therefore does not displace an employer's disciplinary jurisdiction, and a complainant does not cease to be governed by her terms of service merely by filing a complaint. The qualification is the operative holding: any action taken while POSH proceedings are pending must be bona fide, independently justified and wholly unconnected with the complaint, failing which it may operate as a conduit for retaliation. On the facts the Bank's own three-year delay between the first and second cessation notices defeated it. The Bench recorded that workplace sexual harassment is gender discrimination violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
For your exam: Learn Section 4 (Internal Complaints Committee), Section 11 (inquiry), Section 12 (interim relief including leave), Section 18 (appeal) and Section 28 (not in derogation) as a set.
5. A Domestic Violence Complaint After a Voluntary Waiver Is an Abuse of Process
Date: 24 August 2026 | Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India | Citation: Reji Baby v. Subi Mary and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2021; 2026 INSC 918 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan quashed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 instituted after the wife had waived all monetary and maintenance claims, setting aside the Kerala High Court's contrary order of 26 October 2018.
The legal principle: The parties executed a Settlement Agreement on 23 July 2016 and obtained a decree of divorce dated 30 January 2017 by the mutual-consent route under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, the wife having filed an affidavit on 24 January 2017 recording relinquishment of maintenance and the absence of coercion. On that record, revival of the waived claims was an abuse of process, liable to be terminated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Mere averments of duress cannot suffice where no proceeding was ever instituted to set aside the agreement or the decree. Crucially, the settlement bound only its signatories: the adult daughter, not a party, waived nothing and remains at liberty to bring fresh claims.
For your exam: The transferable proposition is that beneficial legislation is not immune from quashing. Note the evidentiary chain — agreement, corroborating affidavit, decree — and the parties-to-the-settlement point.
6. No Proximate Trigger, No Abetment: Acquittal Under Sections 498-A and 306
Date: 29 August 2026 | Court/Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad | Citation: Govind s/o Shripati Shelke v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2016 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: Justice Abhay S. Waghwase acquitted a husband of offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, setting aside a 2016 conviction, because the prosecution had established neither continuous cruelty nor a proximate trigger.
The legal principle: On cruelty the Court applied Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 — the conduct must be continuous or persistent, or at least proximate to the complaint; it must be wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury to life, limb or health; and harassment must be to coerce an unlawful demand or on account of failure to meet it. On abetment it applied Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 and S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190, holding that there must be a live link and a close temporal and causal connection between the accused's conduct and the suicide. The contemporaneous record — a missing report, then an accidental death report, then an FIR lodged only after the last rites — was silent on the conduct later deposed to.
For your exam: For offences on or after 1 July 2024 the operative provisions are Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (cruelty by a husband or his relative, imprisonment up to three years and fine), Section 86 (defining cruelty in the same two limbs), and Section 108 (abetment of suicide, imprisonment up to ten years and fine). The ingredients are preserved, so the case law transfers.
7. A Preventive Order Cannot Reach an Arrangement That Predates It
Date: 24 August 2026 | Court/Authority: High Court of Delhi | Citation: Arvind Malik v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 2712/2026 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐⭐ High
What happened: Justice Saurabh Banerjee quashed FIR No. 407/2019 and all proceedings from it, allowing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleged disobedience of a police order of 5 July 2019 requiring landlords to furnish tenant particulars, but its own recital showed the tenancy had existed for about four months before the inspection of 14 September 2019.
The legal principle: The order was effective for 60 days, from 5 July to 2 September 2019. It governed only tenancies coming into existence during that window and could not be given retrospective effect, being preventive in character; an oral acknowledgement at the scene that verification had not been done could not extend its temporal reach. The Court restated the limited quashing jurisdiction by reference to the seven categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
For your exam: The successors are the examinable part. The preventive power is now Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whose sub-section (4) provides that no such order shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof, with a proviso permitting the State Government by notification to extend it for not more than six further months. The offence is Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, punishable under clause (a) with simple imprisonment up to six months or fine up to Rs 2,500 or both, and under clause (b), where danger to life, health or safety or a riot results, with imprisonment up to one year or fine up to Rs 5,000 or both.
8. A New Societies Regulation Repeals the 1860 Act in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Date: 27 August 2026 | Court/Authority: President of India | Citation: The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Registration of Societies Regulation, 2026, Regulation No. 11 of 2026 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium-High
What happened: The President promulgated, under Article 240 of the Constitution of India, a Regulation running to 14 chapters and 63 sections which, by Section 63(1), repeals the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in its application to the Union territory.
The legal principle: The 1860 Act has fewer than 30 sections and almost no machinery for governance, audit, inspection, dissolution or enforcement; States have progressively replaced it with their own legislation, a route unavailable to a Union territory without a legislature. Under the new Regulation, seven or more persons may form a society under Section 3, whose objects expressly include welfare associations of flat and condominium owners, and Section 25 requires annual returns within 30 days of the annual general meeting. Section 63(3) deems existing societies registered under the Regulation and gives two years from commencement to bring memoranda and bye-laws into conformity. Section 63(4) preserves accrued rights and liabilities while directing that pending proceedings continue under the new Regulation, with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved.
For your exam: The examinable structure is substantive liability saved, procedure switched — a classic repeal-and-savings pattern, learnt alongside Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
9. RBI Places Three Co-operative Banks Under All-Inclusive Directions
Date: Announced 27 and 28 August 2026 | Court/Authority: Reserve Bank of India | Citation: Directions under Section 35A read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 | Exam Relevance: ⭐⭐ Medium
What happened: The Reserve Bank issued all-inclusive directions against The Citizens Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jammu and Desaiganj Nagari Cooperative Bank Maryadit from the close of business on 27 August 2026, and against Ashok Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ahmednagar from the close of business on 28 August 2026, each for six months subject to review. Separately, a press release of 27 August 2026 announced a penalty of Rs 50,000 on Jalna District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. by an order dated 25 August 2026.
The legal principle: Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 empowers the Reserve Bank to issue directions where satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, in the interest of banking policy, to prevent a banking company's affairs being conducted to the detriment of depositors, or to secure proper management; Section 56 applies the Act with modifications to co-operative societies carrying on banking business. The instrument is neither a licence cancellation nor a moratorium under Section 45; it freezes fresh lending, investment, borrowing and deposit acceptance while permitting essential expenditure. Eligible depositors may claim up to Rs 5,00,000 from the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation under the DICGC Act, 1961. Depositors of the Jammu bank may withdraw up to Rs 1,25,000; at the other two banks withdrawals are barred entirely.
For your exam: The Rs 5,00,000 DICGC ceiling, per depositor per bank in the same right and capacity, is a standing examination fact. Distinguish Section 35A directions from a Section 45 moratorium and from cancellation of licence.
Key Facts to Remember
| Date | Item | One-line fact | Subject |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 August 2026 | IDBI Bank v. Sharanjeet Kaur | Section 28 POSH Act — in addition to, not in derogation of | Labour Law |
| 24 August 2026 | Reji Baby v. Subi Mary (2026 INSC 918) | DV complaint after a voluntary waiver is an abuse of process | Family Law |
| 24 August 2026 | Arvind Malik v. State NCT of Delhi | Preventive order cannot reach a pre-existing tenancy | Criminal Law |
| 24 August 2026 | G.S.R. 758(E) | Railways cleanliness fine of Rs 500 becomes a Rs 1,000 penalty | Legislative |
| 24 August 2026 | Punjabi Academy v. Avtar Singh | Part-time teachers paid below the unskilled minimum wage — arbitrary under Article 14 | Service Law |
| 25 August 2026 | Tata Steel (2026 INSC 920) | Section 74 CGST notice must state foundational facts | Tax Law |
| 25 August 2026 | Port of Bombay (2026 INSC 919) | Section 45(3) Customs Act — absolute duty liability on the approved custodian, distinct from loss simpliciter | Customs |
| 27 August 2026 | S.O. 4781(E) | Mediation Council of India established under Section 31(1) | ADR |
| 27 August 2026 | Regulation No. 10 of 2026 | Article 240 route to a High Court sitting in Ladakh | Constitutional Law |
| 27 August 2026 | Regulation No. 11 of 2026 | Societies Registration Act, 1860 repealed for the Andamans | Constitutional Law |
| 27 August 2026 | S.O. 4786(E) and 4787(E) | NIA Special Courts designated at Patna and Visakhapatnam under Section 11, NIA Act 2008 | Criminal Law |
| 29 August 2026 | Bombay HC, Aurangabad | Proximate trigger required for abetment of suicide | Criminal Law |
Landmark Case Connections
- Section 74 GST and limitation — In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020, whose exclusion of 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 was applied in the computation.
- POSH Act and workplace harassment — Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241, the guidelines the 2013 Act codified, read with Articles 14, 15 and 21.
- Waiver and settlement in matrimonial litigation — Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, on a settlement subsuming the original complaint.
Practice MCQs
Q1: Under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the extended limitation route in Section 74 is available only where the shortfall is caused by:
(a) Any arithmetical error in the annual return (b) Fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax (c) A mismatch flagged by the Comptroller and Auditor General (d) Failure to file the annual return within the prescribed time
Answer: (b) — Section 73 covers demands not involving fraud or suppression; Section 74 extends the period only where fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax is the cause. The Court held on 25 August 2026 that the foundational facts must appear on the notice itself. Sections 73 and 74 apply to periods up to FY 2023-24; Section 74A applies from FY 2024-25.
Q2: The Union territory of Ladakh (Sitting of Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh in Ladakh) Regulation, 2026 was made under:
(a) Article 231 of the Constitution of India (b) Article 239AA of the Constitution of India (c) Article 240 of the Constitution of India read with Section 58(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (d) Article 247 of the Constitution of India
Answer: (c) — Article 240 empowers the President to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of specified Union territories, with the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament applying to that territory. Article 231 concerns a common High Court for two or more States; Article 239AA is special provision for Delhi; Article 247 empowers Parliament to establish additional courts.
Q3: Under Section 163(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, an order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger shall not remain in force for more than:
(a) One month, extendable by the Magistrate by three months (b) Two months, extendable by the State Government by up to six further months (c) Three months, non-extendable (d) Six months, extendable indefinitely by the District Magistrate
Answer: (b) — Section 163(4) caps such an order at two months from the making thereof, with a proviso allowing the State Government by notification to extend it for not more than six further months. Disobedience is punishable under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Q4: In August 2026 the Reserve Bank placed three co-operative banks under all-inclusive directions. The maximum a depositor may claim from the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation is:
(a) Rs 1,00,000 (b) Rs 1,25,000 (c) Rs 5,00,000 (d) Rs 10,00,000
Answer: (c) — Rs 5,00,000 per depositor per bank in the same right and capacity, under the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961. The Rs 1,25,000 in option (b) was the withdrawal ceiling at one of the three banks, which is a different thing from the insurance claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the single highest-priority item to revise from W35 2026?
The Tata Steel judgment of 25 August 2026, 2026 INSC 920. Fix four points: the notice fell under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for FY 2018-19 to 2020-21; the Section 73(10) three-year outer limit had expired for every year in issue once the extended annual-return due dates and the Cognizance for Extension of Limitation exclusion were applied; Explanation 2 to Section 74 stood omitted from 1 November 2024; and the proper officer's satisfaction must be his own, not borrowed from an audit objection. The relief was liberty to issue a fresh, particularised notice — not closure.
How should I present the two Article 240 Regulations in an answer?
Treat them as one point with two illustrations. State the provision first: Article 240 empowers the President to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of specified Union territories, with the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament applying to that territory. Then show the range. Regulation No. 10 of 2026 uses it for judicial administration, arranging sittings of the High Court in Ladakh, read with Section 58(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. Regulation No. 11 of 2026 uses it for substantive law reform, replacing the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands with a 63-section code. Close on the reason: neither Union territory has a legislature, so Article 240 is the substitute for one.
Which W35 items test the new criminal codes directly?
Two. The Delhi High Court's quashing on 24 August 2026 turns on the temporal limits of a preventive order — now Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, capped at two months by sub-section (4) — with the offence of disobedience in Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the quashing power in Section 528 BNSS. The Bombay High Court's acquittal of 29 August 2026 was decided on Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 because the conduct dated to 2011; for offences on or after 1 July 2024 the equivalents are Sections 85 and 86 BNS for cruelty and Section 108 BNS for abetment of suicide.
Is anything in this week's list not yet operative, and how should I say so?
Yes, three things, and precision matters. The Mediation Council of India exists as a body corporate from 27 August 2026 but has no Chairperson, no Members and no regulations, so no registration or accreditation obligation has arisen. Both Presidential Regulations of 27 August 2026 depend on a further commencement notification, and none had been traced as at 8 September 2026. Write that as "promulgated, commencement notification not traced as at 8 September 2026" rather than asserting either that the instruments are in force or that they are not.
Content by Veritect Legal Intelligence. For examination preparation purposes only. Verify current legal position from official sources — sci.gov.in, indiacode.nic.in, egazette.gov.in — before any practical application.