Advance service tax paid and adjusted against later GTA liability remained available for adjustment despite failure to give the prescribed intimation, because procedural non-compliance did not negate the excess payment; the GTA demand and related penalties were set aside. TDS borne by the service recipient under foreign technical know-how agreements was not consideration received by the foreign provider and was excluded from the taxable value of IPR services; the related demand and penalties were set aside. Liability for ineligible CENVAT credit remained because the credit and reduced penalty were paid within the stipulated period, sustaining the demand, interest, appropriation and penalty.

CENVAT credit on motor vehicles could not be denied where the underlying activity was mining service but service tax had been incorrectly paid under Site Formation Service. Mining service entered the service-tax net only from 1 June 2007; therefore, the activity was not taxable during the disputed period under the stated classification. Service tax paid on that non-taxable activity was to be treated as reversal of CENVAT credit. As the tax paid exceeded the disputed credit, denial of credit was unsustainable and the cash amount paid under protest was refundable with applicable interest.

Ready-mix concrete produced through an automated batching process is treated as an excisable manufactured product, making a differential service-tax levy on its production unsustainable where service tax paid exceeds potential excise liability. For works contracts involving material supply, including recipient-supplied cement, taxable value must exclude the material component through the prescribed abatement. Receipts reported in Form 26AS cannot alone establish a differential service-tax liability; they must be verified as consideration for taxable services. Service-tax demands therefore require verified taxable consideration and correct works-contract valuation.

Railway works involving installation of OHE-mast bases, infrastructure construction and structural reconstruction qualify as original works where their composite, naturally bundled scope has a dominant construction character; repair labels or isolated repair elements do not alter that classification. The contracts were therefore exempt from Service Tax as railway original works. Extended limitation cannot rest on departmental delay in processing Form 26AS data already available through inter-departmental sharing. Without suppression or wilful misstatement intended to evade tax, the demand is time-barred, and associated interest and penalties lack foundation.

Service tax liability on commission-agent services depends on the date the underlying service is rendered, rather than the date commission is received. Transfer of DFRC licences completed before 09.07.2004 remained outside tax under Business Auxiliary Service and within the applicable exemption at that time. Later receipt of commission did not retrospectively alter taxability. Consequently, commission received after 09.07.2004 for services rendered before that date attracted no service tax, interest, or penalty.

Jurisdictional service-tax authorities have no statutory power to issue clarifications on a person's service-tax liability in response to representations. Chapter VA of the Finance Act, 1994 provides an advance-ruling mechanism only for qualifying applicants and does not create a separate clarification process. Taxability and registration must be determined through quasi-judicial adjudication, with an opportunity of hearing; an unauthorised clarification would bypass those safeguards. Liability for a relevant period may require examination of agreements, contractual relationships and statutory amendments. A clarification issued without statutory authority cannot bind parties or statutory authorities.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 remained effective to the extent of quantified proceeds of crime arising from allegedly unauthorised Tramadol exports to Pakistan. No-objection certificates confined exports to their stated overseas destinations; emails, purchase orders, shipping records and payment details indicated that overseas entities acted as intermediaries, Pakistan was the intended destination, and that destination was concealed. Predicate offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were scheduled offences for money-laundering purposes. Property value is determined by fair market value on acquisition or, if unavailable, possession; a current valuation report did not displace that statutory measure.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, a bank-account freezing order need not itself disclose the recorded reasons to believe if those reasons and supporting materials are forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in the prescribed sealed manner. Procedural compliance also requires a timely application to continue the freezing order and statutory notice. Whether frozen property represents proceeds of crime, including whether restraint should be limited to identifiable proceeds, is to be determined through adjudication after notice and hearing. Writ intervention is ordinarily unavailable while the statutory adjudication process and appellate remedies remain effective.

Interim stay of an insolvency professional's disciplinary suspension requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Challenges to the Disciplinary Committee's competence and procedural validity required final adjudication and did not demonstrate manifest invalidity at the interim stage. Prima facie material concerning unrevised creditor claims, transfer charges collected without Committee of Creditors approval, and altered homebuyers' claims supported the disciplinary findings. Suspension prevented the professional from continuing as resolution professional; notifying the Committee of Creditors and appointing a replacement fell within the regulatory framework. Interim protection was refused because continued assignment was not a vested right and would effectively grant final relief while affecting stakeholders.

The Explanation to section 3(31) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code confines a security interest to rights in property arising from an agreement or arrangement between two or more parties, excluding interests created solely by operation of law. As a clarificatory provision, it applies to pending proceedings. A statutory first charge under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and pre-CIRP attachment measures therefore do not create secured debt; the related tax dues receive operational-creditor treatment under the approved resolution plan. Central Sales Tax dues likewise lack secured status because the Central Sales Tax Act creates no statutory first charge or security interest.

Section 33(1A) gives the Adjudicating Authority judicial, rather than mechanical or unfettered, discretion over a CoC-approved CIRP restoration request. Refusal requires cogent, relevant, record-based reasons directed to value maximisation and the resolution-first objective. Unsupported concerns about monetisation of carried-forward losses, without evidence, procedural opportunity, or tax-law analysis, cannot displace a unanimous CoC decision. The ability to pursue an arbitral receivable in liquidation is also insufficient without comparing value, timelines, costs, litigation risk, and market response. Departure from an earlier extension assessment requires explanation, and a liquidation order must be a reasoned speaking order engaging with the CoC's deliberations and comparative value considerations.

Approved resolution plans bind the corporate debtor, creditors and governmental authorities under section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Read with the Code's overriding effect under section 238, the clean slate doctrine extinguishes claims, including pre-resolution statutory and governmental dues, that are not included in the approved plan. Water-charge demands excluded from the plan therefore cannot be initiated, continued or recovered from the corporate debtor after approval.

Under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, prior Reserve Bank sanction concerning an insured co-operative bank does not replace the Registrar's duty to satisfy the statutory conditions for winding up. A Section 99 winding-up process requires a valid Section 92 inspection, communication of the inspection report or summary to affected stakeholders, an independent recorded opinion, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard where grave civil consequences arise. A member may appeal a winding-up order under Entry 13 of the Third Schedule despite liquidation; requiring recourse through a liquidator whose appointment is contested would undermine that right and conflict with the rule against self-judging.

Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to an error apparent on the face of the record or other recognised grounds. Section 125(2)(h) of the Companies Act applies to unclaimed and unpaid application money received for allotment of securities that is due for refund after the prescribed period. Refunds payable to former shareholders following a court-approved reduction of share capital do not constitute such application money. As the prior directions had considered the relevant material and submissions, no apparent error justified review or transfer of those amounts to the Investor Education and Protection Fund.

Rejection of a plaint must be assessed solely from its averments. Civil-court jurisdiction remains available for declaration and partition claims relating to property held by a company unless company-law fora are empowered to determine that specific dispute; jurisdiction is not excluded merely because assets are company-held. Allegations that property was acquired by a Hindu undivided family Karta from known HUF sources and held for family benefit may fall within the benami-property exception. Where applicability of that exception requires evidence, the benami prohibition cannot conclusively defeat the claim at the pleading stage. Declaration and partition claims may therefore proceed when statutory bars are not apparent from the plaint.

Customs revaluation and differential-duty recovery require corroborated valuation evidence, transparent expert methodology, and a meaningful opportunity to challenge adverse material. Unverified overseas information and unexplained technical reports cannot establish undervaluation where Customs had examined and assessed the imports. Confiscation requires the separate statutory notice and procedure; a duty-recovery notice cannot substitute for it, and goods already cleared and unavailable cannot be confiscated. The extended recovery period cannot apply without proof of deliberate suppression, particularly where import declarations and Customs assessments disclosed the relevant facts. Consequently, the valuation-based duty demands, confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties lack legal foundation.

Release of cargo containers was not directed because the containers still held cargo requiring de-stuffing upon payment of charges. Neither private party agreed to pay those charges, and the importer, whose tribunal appeal remained pending, had not been impleaded. The writ appeal was closed, with liberty to seek appropriate orders from the authorities after notice to the importer.

Paragraph 2.20A of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 prohibits direct or indirect import or transit of goods originating in or exported from Pakistan, including transhipped goods entering India; home-consumption clearance is unnecessary. Conflicting origin documents require determination under statutory procedures and applicable rules of origin rather than writ review. DRI's all-India jurisdiction permits inspection and seizure at the consignment's first Indian arrival point despite onward transhipment. Domestic customs law governs prohibited imports and transit and prevails in any conflict with transit-treaty obligations, subject to treaty exceptions for prohibited goods and security interests. A single, inseparable consignment may be seized in full where origin discrepancies prevent segregation of labelled bags.

Recovery of erroneously or excessively paid drawback under Rule 16 is subject to a reasonable-period requirement where no statutory limitation period is prescribed. Reasonableness depends on the circumstances, including whether fraud, suppression of material facts, or another justification explains delay. In the absence of allegations of fraudulent availment or suppression, and without a satisfactory explanation for commencing recovery more than seven years after payment, the delayed proceedings were unsustainable. The recovery order was set aside and refund of the drawback amount was directed.

Provisional release of seized imported nut pieces pending adjudication was confirmed on furnishing an indemnity. Test reports consistently found the goods unfit for human consumption and supported their declared use as cattle feed. A customs alert and an alleged difference between the declared value and the minimum price for cashew kernels intended for human consumption did not, at that stage, prima facie establish that the goods were prohibited. Statutory adjudication may therefore continue in accordance with law.