The extended limitation period for denying CENVAT credit under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires evidence of suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or comparable deliberate conduct intended to evade tax. Regular self-assessment, ST-3 filings disclosing credit, and audit detection of irregular credit do not by themselves establish that intent. Where a registered assessee supplies records during audit and no mala fide intent is proved, including where it is a State instrumentality, the extended period is unavailable and the resulting demand is unsustainable.

Affiliation and recognition fees collected by a statutory nursing council for granting or renewing permission, recognition and affiliation to nursing colleges and institutions are not chargeable to service tax. The applicable principle treats comparable fees received by universities and statutory educational authorities as outside service-tax liability. Consequently, service-tax demands, related interest and penalties founded on those fees cannot be sustained.

Extended limitation for a service-tax demand was unavailable where tax had been self-assessed, declared and paid, though belatedly, and an application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme concerning interest and penalty had been accepted. These circumstances placed the material particulars within the Department's knowledge and negated reliance on the extended period. As the show-cause notice was issued outside the normal limitation period, the demand was time-barred and consequential penalties were not imposable.

Extended limitation cannot rest solely on audited accounts and records available to the department: accounting treatment or non-declaration, without wilful suppression or intent to evade, is insufficient. Labour charges paid to local workers for renovation, where the recipient procures materials and no contractor supplies goods and services, do not establish a taxable works contract under reverse charge. Shared advertising-cost recovery between associates is reimbursement, not consideration for Business Promotion Service, absent a provider-recipient relationship. Employee secondment for the recipient's work constitutes manpower supply, but a demand dependent on an invalid extended period is time-barred.

Service tax paid on invoices for a period in which no service was rendered may be taken as credit under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules without a prescribed time limit. Following repeal of the service-tax regime, the corresponding amount is refundable in cash under the CGST transitional provision where credit would otherwise have been available. Section 11B limitation does not bar that transitional cash refund. No credit note is required where no contract, service, or payment from the recipient existed.

Composite maintenance-and-repair contracts involving both services and materials constitute works contracts and were not chargeable under pre-existing taxable-service categories before 1 June 2007. For the later period, where no composition-scheme option was established and the value of transferred goods was indeterminable, maintenance and repair work is valued at 70% of the gross amount charged under the prescribed valuation method. Free supplies from the service recipient are excluded, but subcontractor payments cannot reduce taxable value. Cum-tax treatment and adjustment of tax already paid apply. Non-disclosure of full gross receipts may constitute suppression, supporting extended limitation and penalties, while an unrebutted verification report does not by itself breach natural justice.

The Finance Act 2010 deeming provisions treated specified construction intended for sale as taxable service only prospectively from 1 July 2010. Before the effective date, a builder's construction activity was treated as self-service and was not taxable either as construction of residential complex service or works contract service; related demands and penalties did not survive. Covered builder services supplied from 1 July 2010 fell within the service-tax net, leaving post-effective-date service-tax liability enforceable with applicable interest.

Service of an order-in-original by affixture at the registered premises, recorded through a panchnama, constitutes reliable evidence of service where postal communications are repeatedly returned and the address remains in use. Under section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, an appeal must be filed within two months, with condonation available for only one further month on sufficient cause. A first appeal filed after that maximum statutory period is time-barred and cannot be entertained.

RBI KYC Directions permit a bank to decline a transaction or account relationship before Customer Due Diligence is complete, but do not authorise a debit freeze after an account has been activated. Prescribed and suspicious transactions must be reported to the Financial Intelligence Unit, and filing a suspicious transaction report cannot itself restrict account operations. Internal transaction thresholds cannot override these directions. A freeze imposed without prior notice and a hearing breaches natural justice, and a later AML flag cannot retrospectively validate it. The debit restriction must be removed and account operations restored.

Information shared under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that is supported by statements and documents and prima facie reveals cognizable corruption offences requires FIR registration by the competent vigilance agency. Such information substitutes for a preliminary inquiry; inquiry may only assess whether disclosures show an offence, not test their truth. A citizen and whistle-blower challenging refusal to act has standing under Article 226. Police leadership cannot create a special inquiry team where statutory power to establish special units rests with Government. Rejection of earlier private complaints founded on inadequate material does not prevent action on later independent statutory information.

Registration of an FIR for a cognizable corruption offence requires neither a pre-registration hearing for the suspected accused nor a preliminary inquiry where detailed, reasoned material prima facie discloses the offence, including material furnished under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. A direction to register an FIR does not adjudicate guilt or individual legal rights. Persons challenging such a direction must show prima facie legal injury to establish locus standi for appellate leave; independent remedies to challenge the FIR or subsequent proceedings remain available.

Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, including the statutory twin bail conditions and the necessity of custodial interrogation, was in issue. The Supreme Court did not determine those bail issues on their merits, finding no good reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition after an inordinate delay of 480 days. The petition was consequently dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

Non-impleaded persons may seek leave to appeal against writ directions requiring FIR registration, investigation and a final report where those directions themselves find that the material discloses cognizable offences. Because the FIRs arose from judicial directions rather than independent State action under the anti-money-laundering framework, denying appellate participation could prejudice a subsequent independent challenge to the FIRs. The criminal-procedure framework recognises broader participation by a potential accused in judicially directed FIR registration. Directions for investigation and a final report also require consideration of special-law conditions, including prior sanction for alleged offences involving public servants. Leave to appeal was available, and the merits appeals were restored.

Section 95 insolvency applications against personal guarantors are subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 137, running from expiry of the period stated in the demand invoking the guarantee. Any applicable COVID-19 exclusion must be deducted, but an application instituted after the resulting period expires is time-barred and not maintainable. Extension under Section 18 requires a conscious, unequivocal acknowledgment of subsisting liability by the debtor or an authorised person before limitation expires. A resolution professional's admission of a creditor's claim is an administrative act of collating and recording claims, not an admission of liability by the corporate debtor; it therefore neither acknowledges debt nor renews limitation.

Where allegations in complaints to the CBI and Enforcement Directorate substantially overlap with an FIR whose investigation has been stayed and remains pending before a High Court, directions for a parallel investigation or takeover cannot be pursued before another forum. Relief from the stay, or expedition of the pending proceedings, must be sought before the court already seized of the FIR or before the Supreme Court. The requested investigative directions were therefore unavailable.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendment of a timely recovery claim to reflect a compromise arising from the same underlying transaction, because the amendment does not introduce a fresh cause of action. The unpaid compromise amount therefore remained recoverable, while damages first sought through amendment were barred by limitation. Failure to withdraw the suit under the compromise did not defeat recovery where the opposing party had failed to honour its own payment obligation. Liability for the compromised debt attached to the parties to the compromise; a former director who was not a party to that compromise was not liable.

Corporate-guarantee liability falls within financial debt even if the guarantee was uninvoked when CIRP began; default is relevant to CIRP commencement rather than the existence of a claim. An individual homebuyer may challenge a creditor's CoC inclusion without acting through the class's authorised representative, whose statutory role is limited to attending meetings and voting. Contractual rights enabling policy-making participation and extensive business supervision may render a financial creditor a related party, excluding it from CoC representation, participation and voting. A post-CIRP assignment that is not bona fide cannot bypass the related-party exclusion.

Model-specific RSA chassis and backplane assemblies with integrated backplane PCBAs, imported without interface cards, power modules or processor/control cards, are classified as parts of heading 8517 under tariff item 8517 79 90. They lack the essential character and independent signal-processing function of complete photonic service switches and are solely or principally suitable for those switches; the integrated assembly is not merely a populated printed circuit board. Goods under that tariff item qualify for nil basic customs duty under Serial No. 5(a) of Notification No. 57/2017-Customs, unless they are parts of cellular mobile phones or wrist wearable devices. The relief applies only to basic customs duty, not integrated tax or other duties, taxes or cesses.

FOB value re-determination following an unchallenged remand order is limited to applying the prescribed valuation procedure; findings that declared values were doubtful, misdeclaration was established, and re-determination was required cannot be reopened. Application of Rules 5 to 8 of the Valuation Rules, 1988 requires examination of the values of the relevant goods. Re-determined FOB values consistent with binding remand directions require no interference.

Restoration of the statutory customs appeal was warranted because prior withdrawal, dismissal of the writ petition, and refusal to recall the appeal had deprived the appellants of any appellate consideration on merits. The right of appeal operates as a valuable remedy requiring at least one appellate forum to address an aggrieved party's grievance. The appellants may pursue their appeal before CESTAT, which must decide it on merits within the stipulated period.