Transportation of goods by road does not create further service-tax liability for the provider where the recipient has discharged the tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The absence of a consignment note, together with tax payment by the recipient, supports the conclusion that no additional tax is payable by the transport service provider. Consequently, a service-tax demand and associated penalty against the provider are unsustainable in these circumstances.

Original works relating to a single residential unit, other than as part of a residential complex, qualify for service-tax exemption. Where the recorded construction agreement and acknowledged contract value establish that the full receipt relates to construction of the residential house, the service recipient's inability to explain the payment mode does not by itself prove consideration for separate taxable works. The entire construction consideration is therefore exempt, with no service tax or penalty payable.

Leasing an excavator falls outside the taxable category of supply of tangible goods where the lease transfers the lessee's exclusive right to use the equipment. Section 66E(f) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies only where goods are hired or leased without such transfer. Exclusive control, operation, maintenance and related expenses borne by the lessee support treatment as a deemed sale. VAT paid on the consideration is consistent with the transaction being a transfer of the right to use, leaving no service tax payable on the lease charges.

Contractual recoveries from transporters for short or damaged cement deliveries are liquidated damages for failure to perform, not consideration for agreeing to tolerate a breach under Section 66E(e). Where service tax has already been paid on freight, such compensation cannot be taxed again as a declared service; the related service-tax demand and interest were annulled. As the underlying non-payment allegation did not survive, the Section 78 penalty was also set aside. Penalties under Sections 77(1)(a) and 77(2) for contravention of Section 70 remained operative as independent compliance penalties.

Reverse-charge liability for goods transport agency services rests with specified freight-paying corporate recipients; where they have discharged tax, the service provider cannot face duplicate service-tax and interest recovery. Income-tax return turnover alone does not establish taxable-service liability without verification of the nature of services. Extended limitation requires suppression with intent to evade, which registration and information received from the Income Tax Department did not establish. Mandatory pre-show-cause-notice consultation applies unless an identified exclusion operates; failure to consult renders the demand unsustainable. With no surviving substantive demand or suppression, the equal penalty is unsustainable, while a separate penalty for statutory contravention remains applicable.

Service Tax demands founded on return and challan discrepancies require verification of underlying transactions, service-wise quantification, and consideration of revised returns and statutory treatment. Manpower supplied to body corporates may shift tax liability to recipients under reverse charge. Contracts involving materials may constitute works contract services, attracting applicable partial reverse charge and valuation treatment, subject to CENVAT credit adjustment. Services for authorised SEZ operations may receive exemption despite procedural-form lapses where substantive eligibility is established. Mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation is material where its omission prevents reconciliation and consideration of statutory benefits; failure may prejudice the validity of demand proceedings.

Section 5(1) attachment requires recorded, reasoned grounds showing that property is likely to be concealed, transferred, or dealt with to frustrate confiscation. That requirement is not met for assets under lawful seizure, court custody, or bank mortgage because they remain beyond the affected person's effective control; attachment may be reconsidered if those restraints cease. Section 50 statements may support attachment where coercion is unsubstantiated and no prompt formal retraction exists. Where direct proceeds have been dissipated, equivalent-value assets may be attached. Persons claiming legitimate acquisition must corroborate funding through reliable banking and contemporaneous evidence; income-tax returns alone do not establish untainted funds.

Approval of a resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes pre-CIRP claims against the corporate debtor and successful resolution applicant, including claims omitted from the plan, while claims owed to the corporate debtor survive for pursuit by the successful resolution applicant. The arbitration agreement remains separable from the underlying contract and may continue despite termination and plan approval. Where reciprocal claims arise under the same contract, an extinguished operational creditor claim may exceptionally operate only as a defensive set-off against sums payable, not as an affirmative monetary counterclaim. Excluding the CIRP moratorium period, arbitration invocation and arbitrator-appointment proceedings remain timely if filed within the adjusted limitation period.

Inspection and disclosure in regulatory proceedings are limited to material in the regulator's possession, forming part of its record, and relied upon in the proceedings. Access to a bank's Secretarial Portal and electronic data stored on its servers or devices is not required where that material is outside the regulator's record and the hearing notice confirms it will not be relied upon. Requests must identify documents clearly and precisely; blanket access may expose confidential third-party information. As the relied-on reports and documents were supplied, the access direction was unsustainable.

Section 28A recovery may enforce a final regulatory refund direction against a director whose tenure overlapped with the relevant mobilisation of investor funds. Resignation after that period does not remove liability where the director remains named in the final refund order. Attachment and remittance of funds may implement the quantified outstanding liability following non-compliance, absent a jurisdictional error or illegality in recovery, computation, or remittance.

Representative oppression and mismanagement proceedings require stakeholders to pursue relief through the representative mechanism made available for the affected class. An intervenor permitted to proceed collectively, but who does not use that avenue, lacks standing to bring an individual challenge against final directions governing share entitlement, dues, management and class-wide decision-making. Additional factual material sought after hearings have concluded and orders have been reserved should not be received where opposing parties lack an opportunity to rebut it, as this would breach natural justice. Material non-disclosure and repetitive individual proceedings may attract exemplary costs.

Interim suspension of oppression-and-mismanagement directions was considered where a fair valuation-based buy-out was disputed as relying on earlier contested valuation reports. Uncertainty also arose from the coexistence of a fair valuation mechanism and a mutually agreed purchase price. The assessment further identified apparent exclusion of a minority shareholder from meaningful management participation following the founder's death. The directions were stayed on an interim basis pending further listing, while removal and nominee-director directions were addressed separately.

Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 requires finalisation documents within three months of clearance of the last consignment, unless the proper officer grants an extension. Denial of the nil-duty project-import concession requires proof of the last-clearance date and non-submission within the applicable period. Where an extension request remains undisposed of, documents are furnished before show-cause notices, and record findings on the extension request or reconciliation statement are incorrect, non-compliance is not established. Applicable Board circulars allowing relaxation for public sector undertakings must also be considered before denying the concession.

Attempted export of prohibited red sander logs concealed by substitution for granite slabs can justify a customs penalty where export documentation and handling circumstances fail to establish bona fides. A purchase order inconsistent with the declared quantity, description, and value, use of a low-value free shipping bill, loading outside the exporter's premises, and absence of the usual company seal on the container indicate inadequate due diligence. Prior genuine exports do not by themselves displace these adverse circumstances. The penalty's quantum was reduced.

For the pre-amendment period, delayed-payment interest on IGST following surrender of an Advance Authorisation exemption required substantive statutory authority. In the absence of a specific authorising provision, interest paid was recoverable as a deposit rather than treated as duty. The two-year limitation applicable to duty-refund claims did not govern recovery of that deposit, leaving the consequential refund legally maintainable. A binding High Court ruling on the identical issue governed despite conflicting Tribunal decisions and a pending Larger Bench reference.

Re-import duty exemption for goods sent abroad for repair or reconditioning requires re-export of the same re-imported goods and verification of their identity. Exporting freshly manufactured replacement goods, even where identical in description and quality, does not satisfy that condition. A shipping bill must declare that the exported goods are the re-imported goods after rework; without that declaration, their identity cannot be verified. Failure to meet these requirements results in denial of the exemption and liability for duty and consequential obligations.

Gold seized in a town setting may attract the Section 123 presumption only after an objectively sustainable reasonable belief, based on case-specific evidence, that it is of foreign origin and illicitly imported. Suspicion arising from concealment, missing documents, general smuggling intelligence, or border proximity does not establish those facts. Stock records, purchase invoices, financial records, and evidence of melting old jewellery may support licit acquisition where not effectively disproved. A retracted statement cannot establish smuggling or penalty liability without independent corroboration and compliance with Section 138B safeguards. In the absence of such proof, confiscation and penalties are unsustainable.

Procedural, curative and declaratory 2016 amendments to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act may apply retroactively to enforce the pre-existing prohibition on benami transactions, while new or enhanced penal provisions remain prospective. Benami status depends on the source of consideration, control, custody of purchase records and beneficial use; funding and use by a person other than the ostensible owner support beneficial ownership. Sworn statements expressly made voluntarily require a valid, timely retraction to be displaced. Unsupported cash records inconsistent with disclosed income and transaction patterns may be treated as fabricated. Written reasons to believe are required before a show-cause notice, but separate disclosure of those recorded reasons is not required where the notice states the material basis and allegations.

For general insurers, the special computation under section 44 read with Rule 5 permits only prescribed adjustments. Statutory depreciation is available where book depreciation is excluded, with consequential treatment of fixed-asset sale profits; prior-year disallowed expenditure may be deducted after statutory conditions, including tax-deduction compliance, are met. The framework does not permit taxation of investment-sale profits through unprescribed adjustments or section 14A disallowance against exempt dividend income. AMP expenditure is not an international transaction without evidence of a brand-promotion arrangement with the associated enterprise. Co-insurance fees under a principal-to-principal arrangement are not commission, and qualifying computer peripherals are revenue expenditure.

Section 11(2) permits a charitable or religious trust to accumulate income beyond the general exemption limit where Form 10 specifies the purpose and period, is furnished by the return-filing due date, and the funds are invested or deposited in permitted modes. Neither Section 11(2) nor Rule 17(2) requires trustees to pass an accumulation resolution before the end of the relevant previous year. A resolution passed later does not by itself defeat accumulation where the prescribed filing, purpose, period and investment conditions are satisfied.