Interest on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit is calculated under section 50(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 88B(3) from the actual date of utilisation until reversal, rather than from an earlier date of availment. Where verification establishes the utilisation and reversal dates, interest must cover that intervening period only. The assessment must be modified to correct any interest computation beginning before actual utilisation.

Interest on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit must be computed from the actual date of utilisation until the date of reversal. Section 50(3), read with rule 88B(3), does not permit interest to be calculated from an earlier date merely because the credit was wrongly availed. Where interest has been computed from an incorrect earlier date, the assessment order requires modification to apply the revised computation. Statutory appeal or revision remains available for any other disputed issue.

Section 107 of the GST law requires the Appellate Authority to provide a hearing, make necessary inquiry, and issue a written order identifying the issues, decision, and reasons. An appellant's non-appearance may permit ex parte consideration but does not permit dismissal for non-prosecution. An appellate order that ignores an adjournment request and merely records that no interference is warranted, without reasoned consideration of the appeal grounds, breaches those requirements. The matter was remanded for fresh merits adjudication after hearing.

Customs adjudication orders require challenges to determinations, related bank guarantees, and alleged adjudicatory delay to be pursued before the statutory appellate forum in the first instance. A direction to defer matters involving delay in adjudication does not extend to a writ where Orders-in-Original have already been issued; the dispute is no longer one concerning pending adjudication. Relief restraining finalisation of provisional assessments becomes infructuous after adjudication. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, writ jurisdiction cannot bypass the appellate remedy, and non-disclosure of a material prior adjudication order affects writ relief. The merits of the orders and consequences of alleged delay remain open before the appellate authority.

Unilateral cancellation of an irrevocable joint development agreement and power of attorney was treated prima facie as ineffective where they conferred development rights on the corporate debtor and barred unilateral revocation. The construction period ran from requisite approvals and had been extended, while an alleged no-objection remained conditional and unaccepted. Land subject to mortgage and possible third-party rights was not excluded from the corporate insolvency resolution process at this stage. The landowner could intervene, and all parties were required to maintain status quo pending disposal of the appeal.

The first proviso to section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act creates a case-specific exception for women seeking bail from the statutory twin conditions. The benefit is discretionary, not automatic, and depends on the facts. Completion of investigation, filing of the complaint, time in custody, and absence of any investigative need for the woman's presence supported the grant of regular bail; no basis arose to cancel it.

Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives a secured creditor priority over other debts and charges through its overriding provision. A creditor holding a prior registered mortgage may enforce the secured asset notwithstanding an interim attachment obtained in arbitral proceedings. An attachment entry in the encumbrance record cannot obstruct enforcement or create a cloud over the mortgaged property's title. The attaching creditor may pursue any surplus remaining after the secured debt has been satisfied.

Valid registration under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act is a mandatory condition for claiming input tax credit. Section 13(1), read with the statutory definition in Section 2(P), requires a dealer to hold a valid registration certificate. Dealers who are unregistered and lack such a certificate do not meet the statutory eligibility requirement and cannot avail input tax credit.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, founded on relevant material and followed by the statutory adjudication process, is not ordinarily amenable to writ review of disputed evidence. Judicial review may examine the existence of material and legality of the decision-making process, but does not determine the truth or probative value of competing evidence on property provenance or its nexus with proceeds of crime. Acceptance of a cash explanation in income-tax proceedings does not establish lawful criminal provenance or bar a money-laundering inquiry. An alleged defect in the subsequent Adjudicating Authority's composition is severable and does not retrospectively invalidate an independent provisional attachment.

Cheque-dishonour liability may be supported by a written and notarised acknowledgement of an independently enforceable monetary debt; acquittal in a separate criminal prosecution does not, by itself, negate that liability. Proof of drawing, presentation and dishonour gives rise to statutory presumptions of consideration and liability, rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities through a probable defence rather than an unsupported claim. Registered-post dispatch to the drawer's admitted address supports presumed service of the demand notice, while receipt of summons provides an opportunity to pay within fifteen days. Revisional review remains limited to perversity, evidentiary absence, gross illegality, or procedural miscarriage in concurrent findings.

Fiscal classification depends on the form in which goods are sold at the taxable event, rather than on a consumer's later use. Strict construction precludes importing an end-use criterion where a statutory entry classifies goods by physical form. Where a beverage entry groups beverages with syrups, cordials, distilled juices, ark and essences, ejusdem generis confines the entry to comparable liquid preparations. The word "including" does not extend that entry to materially different forms without an express deeming provision. GRD Powder and GRD Mix, sold respectively as powder and biscuit, therefore fall under the residuary classification despite possible later preparation as drinks.

Extended limitation for a service tax demand cannot rest on alleged suppression where ST-3 returns and material facts were already available to the Department when it issued an earlier show-cause notice on the same or similar facts. Departmental knowledge of those facts prevents their later characterisation as suppression. The subsequent notice must therefore be restricted to the normal limitation period, making invocation of the extended period unsustainable.

Service-tax treatment of lease termination payments depends on their character and receipt. A compensatory sum stipulated for premature vacation, not received under a compromise and not representing rent for continued occupation, is excluded from taxable renting consideration. Lease-rent liability for a period after vacation requires exclusion of unsupported rent, availability of the small-service-provider exemption, and adjustment for tax previously paid. Where competing lease agreements state different rents, a rent figure corroborated by the tenant's confirmation supports tax computation, while a later lower-rent agreement may be less credible. The discussion distinguishes unreceived breach compensation from taxable actual lease rent.

Free-of-cost materials supplied by customers do not form part of the gross amount charged for valuing works contract services, excluding the corresponding service tax component. Construction of a hospital remains commercial or industrial construction service unless charitable use is established. For post-July 2012 works contracts, Rule 2A permits exclusion of established actual goods value or prescribed presumptive valuation; abatement applies where no higher actual goods value is proved, with provider liability reduced to reflect recipient-side tax liability. Services remain classified as exclusive service contracts where a works-contract classification is unsupported. Verified service tax deposits may be adjusted against confirmed liability. Non-payment, non-filing of returns and non-disclosure detected through investigation support service tax penalties.

Exclusive liquor-branding and display arrangements constituted taxable promotional activity rather than trading margins, with service-tax liability limited to the normal limitation period. Separately invoiced food and beverages supplied to hotel rooms did not fall within restaurant service because rooms were not restaurant premises and the supplies constituted sale or transfer of goods. Electricity charges recovered from tenants at actual sub-metered consumption and remitted to suppliers were not consideration for renting services and could not be included in taxable value as reimbursement. Extended recovery was unavailable where the notice did not invoke the statutory proviso and no wilful suppression or intent to evade tax was established.

E-governance portal and data-digitisation services facilitating access to State-owned data did not satisfy OIDAR, because the provider did not give access to data possessed by it. Support for governmental, university, and educational functions was not directed to business or commerce and therefore did not fall within business auxiliary or business support services before the negative-list regime. From 1 July 2012, portal services supplied to universities and educational institutions fell within the relevant educational-service exemption. Interest on fixed deposits of temporarily retained fee and bill collections represented the bank-paid time value of money, rather than consideration for a service, and was outside the service-tax charge.

Patent illegality is unavailable as a ground to set aside an award in an international commercial arbitration. Contractual clauses excluding service tax from a contractor's ordinary tax liabilities and requiring actual, genuine payment permit reimbursement of service tax directly paid under the reverse charge mechanism for project-related input services. Such services may include manpower, transport and security services, including those obtained through subcontractors, provided they relate to contract performance. Reimbursement is limited to tax proven to have been directly deposited; vendor-paid amounts without proof of actual deposit are excluded. A reasonable interpretation allowing this reimbursement does not conflict with the public policy of India, leaving the award enforceable.

Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST, covering construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works, was considered alongside the scope of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and an employee-employer relationship. The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the common Tribunal orders and dismissed the appeals, leaving those orders undisturbed.

PMLA attachment of a bank balance requires an identifiable nexus between the property and proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence. No fintech or service-provider entity was shown to operate the relevant lending application, and predicate-offence chargesheets neither implicated the appellant nor attributed alleged criminal activity to that application. Alleged commission income was not linked to identified criminal proceeds, while an outstanding contractual loan component could not, without further material, be characterised as proceeds of crime. As the available bank balance was not specifically traced to a scheduled offence, the required nexus was absent and the property could not be treated as proceeds of crime.

Individual shareholders lack appellate standing as persons aggrieved to challenge approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Shareholder interests are represented through the resolution professional or liquidator, and individual challenges would disrupt the time-bound insolvency process. Unsupported allegations of fraud or collusion do not create an exception. Homebuyers who did not independently challenge the resolution plan cannot contest it indirectly by supporting a shareholder's appeal.