GST reverse charge mechanism liability on borrowing-related expenditure requires identification of the underlying supply and verification that reverse charge applies in the particular facts. Borrowing costs may comprise bank processing charges already subjected to GST, loan prepayment charges, and fees connected with deposit-of-title-deeds documentation. Tax-inclusive booking of expenses, including unclaimed eligible input tax credit, must be distinguished from a taxable reverse-charge transaction; the tax base and nature of each debit require verification.

Abbreviations used: ITA 1961 or 61 Act - The income-tax Act, 1961 ITA 2025 or 25 Act - The income-tax Act, 2025 ITR 1962 or 62 Rules - Income Tax Rules 1962 ITR 2026 Or Rules 2026- Income-tax rules 2026 ITA 2025 ITA 1961 Remarks Income-tax Act, 2025 Chapter II BASIS OF CHARGE   Income-tax Act, 1961 Chapter II BASIS OF CHARGE   Similar 10. Apportionment of income between spouses governed by Portuguese Civil Code. [Apporti... ... ...

Clubbing of proceedings is usually for the convenience of parties contesting the same so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, delay in adjudication as well as expenses incurred therein. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('Code' for short) Code does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits but the same could be done under the inherent powers of the Court flowing from Section 151 of the Code. The parties are relieved of adducing similar documentary and oral evidence in two suits but in... ... ...

CBIC Guidelines on Arrest and Bail CBIC (GST-Investigation Wing) has issued guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to offences punishable under CGST Act, 2017 vide CBIC Instruction No. 02/2022-23 (GST - Investigation) dated 17.08.2022: • It may be noted that Supreme Court in criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021 [SLP (Criminal) No. 5442/2021] in SIDDHARTH Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. - 2021 (8) TMI 977 - Supreme Court observed and held that: • Merely because a... ... ...

The Third Writ Returned to the Same Adjudication Order A taxpayer may possess several grounds for questioning a GST demand, but those grounds must be raised through the proper remedy and at the appropriate time. Once a writ petition challenging an adjudication order is withdrawn without liberty to file afresh, the taxpayer cannot ordinarily begin another round of writ proceedings against the same order merely by improving the drafting, adding legal grounds or challenging related notifications... ... ...

Section 138 complaints should not be quashed merely because the alleged settlement cheque appears improbable or a later police statement cites a different cheque number. A matter listed for evidence may have reached the evidence stage even if testimony has not commenced. Whether the cheque identified in the complaint was issued, and the significance of differing cheque numbers, are disputed factual and evidentiary matters requiring assessment of the parties and documents at trial rather than detailed evaluation in quashing proceedings.

Clandestine manufacture and clearance require cogent, affirmative and corroborated evidence; documented trading purchases cannot be recharacterised as manufactured goods on untested transporter statements, logos, turnover disparities, or inference alone. Separation of trading and manufacturing turnover determines small-scale industry exemption eligibility, with actual manufacturing clearances and duty payment requiring verification where necessary. Prior departmental knowledge and periodic disclosures negate suppression intended to evade duty, preventing reliance on the extended limitation period. Penalties for deliberate evasion and personal involvement require established clandestine manufacture and conscious participation, while an independent failure to maintain prescribed records remains separately enforceable.

Education cess, secondary and higher education cess, and statutory interest paid in full are liable to appropriation, satisfying the underlying payment liability. Penalties based on the restrictive default-payment regime under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 do not survive where that regime is ultra vires and the substantive liability and applicable interest have been discharged. Cess and interest obligations consequently stand satisfied, with no remaining penal liability.

Service-tax liability for construction depends on the charging and valuation provisions applicable to the relevant period. Construction for individual purchasers and landowners before 1 July 2010 falls outside the later prospective deeming provision, while educational construction is not a works contract primarily for commerce or industry without proof of such use. Post-amendment residential construction and separately contracted site formation remain taxable where statutory conditions apply. Surviving works-contract liability must exclude the value of goods and be recomputed activity-wise and period-wise; composition eligibility requires contract-wise verification of prior tax payment. Extended limitation and suppression-based penalties require wilful concealment, while rectification rejection does not prevent appellate valuation relief.

Contract manufacture of alcoholic liquor for a brand owner for consideration constituted a taxable service under the negative-list regime. From 1 June 2015, alcoholic liquor for human consumption was excluded from the exemption for processes amounting to manufacture or production of goods. The relevant distinction was between manufacture undertaken independently for oneself and contract manufacturing or job work performed for another person. Consequently, service tax applied to contract manufacture of alcoholic liquor for brand owners during the disputed periods.

Available CENVAT credit balance, where sufficient to meet confirmed service-tax liabilities, may be adjusted against the tax demand and consequential interest. Credit availability does not cure failures to file ST-3 returns or disclose taxable services. Return-filing and disclosure defaults may therefore attract a statutory penalty notwithstanding extinction of tax and interest through credit adjustment; the penalty may be confined to 25% of the service tax payable.

Regular bail in a money-laundering matter remained refused after the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's rejection of bail and dismissed the special leave petition. The issues identified included the independence of the money-laundering offence from the scheduled offence, the twin bail conditions under Section 45, the sick-or-infirm proviso, proceeds of crime, modus operandi, and reason to believe.

Bankruptcy commencement vests property standing to the bankrupt's credit, including bank-account balances, in the Bankruptcy Trustee by operation of law, regardless of the bankrupt's knowledge. Statutory exclusions for personal ornaments are exhaustive: only qualifying unencumbered ornaments within the prescribed limit are protected, not sale proceeds deposited into a bank account; withdrawals of such proceeds therefore concern estate property and must be returned. Recall of an ex parte return order requires substantiated inability to respond and demonstrated prejudice; unsupported connectivity issues and adequate opportunity to answer do not justify recall.

Liquidation by sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern commences on the liquidation commencement date where the liquidation order adopts the creditors' recommendation and directs that mode of sale. Issuance of an auction notice or finalisation of an asset sale process document is not a statutory trigger for commencement. A subsequent regulatory omission of going-concern-sale provisions operates prospectively and does not displace rights and obligations crystallised under the earlier framework. Consultation, valuation, reserve pricing, marketing and auction preparation form a continuing sale process; the prescribed period for endeavouring the sale is directory and may be extended.

Limitation for a Section 9 insolvency application is computed by excluding the Supreme Court-directed COVID-19 period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. Where the unexpired three-year limitation balance on 15 March 2020 is 626 days, that longer balance, rather than merely the minimum 90 days, is available from 1 March 2022. For a default on 2 December 2018, the resulting limitation period expires on 17 November 2023; an application filed on 17 November 2022 is therefore within limitation.

Section 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 requires a creditor's insolvency petition to satisfy all mandatory conditions, including proof of an actual statutory act of insolvency within the prescribed period. Misdescription of the provision invoked does not invalidate a petition if its substance falls under Section 9(1). Mere non-payment of debt, or an attempt or intention to transfer property, does not constitute an act of insolvency; an actual qualifying transfer is required. Without that statutory foundation, the petition is incompetent, and any resulting insolvency adjudication and consequential liquidation measures cannot continue against any debtor, including non-appellant debtors.

Customs assessment may treat temporally proximate consignments from a common supplier as one complete motorcycle where matching markings, inspection evidence and a foreign registration plate establish a deliberately split composite import. Declared spare-parts values may then be rejected and residual valuation used where they do not represent the goods actually imported and other valuation methods lack reliable data. Duty remains chargeable to the real importer rather than jointly and severally to distinct persons who did not jointly import. Objective evidence can sustain confiscation and false-declaration penalties independently of customs statements where statutory safeguards for their substantive use are unmet. Proper-officer jurisdiction and common adjudication of linked port clearances are also addressed.

Customs broker licence suspension requires evidence of a specific breach of prescribed due-diligence obligations, rather than general or unsubstantiated allegations. Obtaining statutory identification and KYC documents, stopping clearance on departmental instructions, and absence of evidence of collusion, knowledge of misdeclaration, or regulatory contravention do not justify suspension. A customs broker need not physically verify an importer's premises or independently determine import transaction value. Statutory timelines for licensing proceedings are mandatory; prolonged suspension without timely show-cause action or completion of prescribed procedure is unsustainable and has no continuing legal effect.

Appellate Tribunal jurisdiction under Section 129A extends to confiscation orders concerning a domestically registered conveyance, Indian currency, redemption fine and penalty where the goods are neither imported nor exported and the vehicle was not seized while carrying smuggled goods. Such orders do not fall within the statutory exceptions for baggage, specified un-unloaded import goods or drawback. Consequently, the appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal applies, and revision under Section 129DD is not maintainable.

Final approval of a corporate resolution plan governed a fiscal demand for which the relevant authority had not filed any claim during insolvency proceedings. Departmental appeals concerning that unasserted demand remained subject to the plan's finality, and the substantial questions of law raised in those appeals were left unanswered. The approved plan therefore operated as the controlling framework for treatment of the fiscal demand despite the pending departmental appeals.