Non-service of notice for the final hearing, supported by an affidavit, prevents an ex parte first-appellate order from being sustained where the assessee had no opportunity to participate or furnish relevant material. Observance of natural justice requires a fresh hearing and adjudication before assessment issues are decided on their merits. The assessment issues themselves remain unexamined until that opportunity is provided.

Government shareholding in IDBI may be reduced or divested because the IDBI (Repeal) Act, 2003 contains no restriction on dilution of the Government's stake. A proposed amendment to limit dilution was rejected and not incorporated into the enacted law. Parliamentary statements cannot override statutory text, and promissory estoppel cannot be invoked on the basis of legislative debate statements to prevent dilution of Government shareholding. Successive Union Budget speeches also reflected a policy of transformation and strategic disinvestment of IDBI Bank.

InvITs may issue depository receipts on their units subject to applicable requirements and the manner specified by the Board. Specified unitholder approvals require votes in favour representing at least seventy-five per cent of total votes cast, rather than approval by unitholders holding a prescribed value of units. For transaction-related approvals, votes cast by related parties are excluded. A sponsor exit in a multiple-sponsor InvIT requires an exit option for dissenting unitholders through purchase of their units.

Section 122(1A) may impose personal GST penalty on a registered or unregistered person only for a covered invoice or input tax credit transaction. Liability requires cumulative proof that the individual retained an identifiable personal benefit and that the transaction was conducted at that person's instance. Directorship, employment, registration, signature authority, or association with the taxable entity neither independently establishes nor excludes liability. Proceedings require transaction-specific and person-specific allegations and findings. The provision operates prospectively for underlying acts or transactions occurring on or after 01.01.2021.

AT-1 bond write-downs triggered by a Point of Non-Viability must occur before a reconstruction scheme takes effect and require RBI's independent regulatory determination. Subsequent financial developments cannot determine the validity of administrative action taken earlier. Where a notified reconstruction scheme omits the draft's express write-down provision, a general savings clause preserving existing instruments does not empower an Administrator to extinguish the bonds. An Administrator exercising board powers cannot assume the regulator's distinct authority under the Master Circular. The write-down is therefore ultra vires, the bond extinguishment remains invalid, and coupon payments continue under the Information Memoranda.

CENVAT credit earned by a centrally registered provider of taxable output services may be maintained in a common credit pool and used to pay excise duty without separate input service distributor registration where no inter-office distribution occurs. Credit for services at declared service stations, marketing offices and branch offices may qualify where connected with taxable services, sales up to the place of removal, advertising or sales promotion. Recovery of ISD credit requires proof that underlying services were used by multiple units. Extended limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression or intent to evade; audit detection, available records and revenue neutrality do not by themselves establish those conditions. Previously reversed credit cannot be re-availed or refunded if it produces double availment.

Amounts paid during an investigation before any assessment or adjudicated excise liability arises are deposits, not excise duty, even if credited under a duty accounting head. Where accepted towards an appeal and not released beyond the mandatory amount, those payments must be treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F. Interest on their refund is statutory rather than equitable and cannot be awarded at a non-statutory rate. Section 11BB, concerning delayed refunds of duty following an application, does not govern such deposits. Section 35FF instead requires interest at the applicable statutory rate from the date of deposit until refund.

Investment-linked VAT remission under a State industrial incentive scheme is a subsidy, not additional consideration paid by buyers for excisable goods. Where VAT is first determined and then substantially remitted subject to investment, production, entitlement-period and capital-investment conditions, the retained remission does not form part of excise transaction value. Central excise duty and consequential interest on that amount are therefore unsustainable. Extended limitation and an equal penalty are also unavailable where the Department knew of the VAT retention through audit and supplied particulars, with no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty established.

CENVAT credit is admissible for additional customs duty, including countervailing duty paid at a concessional rate on imported coal under Notification No. 12/2012-Customs. Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 independently allows credit of such additional customs duty. The restriction under Rule 3(1)(i), linked to specified Central Excise exemptions, applies to domestically manufactured goods and cannot be read into the Customs notification governing imported coal. Disallowance of credit on that basis is therefore unsustainable.

CENVAT credit should not be denied merely because all invoice copies are unavailable where duty-register entries, vendor records and produced invoices support receipt and accounting of inputs, with no allegation of diversion, non-receipt or clandestine removal. Extended limitation cannot sustain a credit demand once departmental knowledge is evidenced and suppression or misstatement is not established. Consequently, a delayed demand for disputed credit, with related interest and penalty, is unsustainable where the documentary lapse is technical and the substantive receipt of goods remains undisputed.

Individual director penalty under Rule 26(2) is unsustainable where the company was not served with a penalty show-cause notice, the director was not an authorised signatory, and personal involvement is unproved. Liability requires proof that the individual issued, or abetted issuing, invoices without delivery of goods; a corporate transaction alone does not establish vicarious penal liability. Purchasers' reversal of credit is not an admission by the director or company. Investigation statements, including those of truck owners, cannot support liability unless admitted through the mandatory procedure under Section 9D. Lack of supplier infrastructure alone does not prove the director's connivance or abetment.

Applicability of the statutory excise-duty refund and interest regime to voluntary or involuntary deposits, including payments made under mistake or during investigation, remains contested. Conflicting Tribunal views concern both the applicable interest rate and the date from which interest becomes payable. These issues were referred for constitution of a still larger Bench, with no final determination of entitlement, rate, or commencement of interest.

Industrial water-drawal agreements are characterised by their substantive supply of water, not by ancillary obligations to construct conveyance infrastructure or pay charges for authorised quantities. Where the arrangement is a sale of water rather than an assignment of rights to use natural resources, it does not attract service tax on taxable natural-resource-use rights. Reverse-charge service tax that is fully creditable against duty on final products creates revenue neutrality. In those circumstances, the extended limitation period is unavailable; after cessation of the CENVAT credit regime, the corresponding credit amount may be refundable in cash under the transitional framework.

Service tax on a works contract applies only to the service component. The value of goods transferred or used in executing the contract must be excluded from taxable value, determined on either an actual or presumptive basis. VAT liability and any non-payment on the goods component fall within State tax administration and do not permit service tax to be imposed on that component. Valuation that includes the goods value solely because VAT was unpaid is unsustainable.

Service-tax demand for the period up to 30 September 2016 was time-barred because it exceeded the five-year extended limitation period. Works-contract receipts from 1 October 2016 to 30 June 2017 remained taxable to the extent of 33% of gross receipts, with interest but without penalty. Vodafone distributorship commission qualified for the applicable service-tax exemption, so the related demand did not survive. VAT-paid supplies of plastic dustbins, portolet toilets and similar goods constituted sales of goods rather than taxable services; consequently, no service tax was payable on those supplies.

Service-tax proceedings against an individual practising advocate cannot rest solely on Form 26AS entries. The Finance Act, 1994 and Notifications 25/2012-Service Tax and 30/2012-Service Tax require examination of the nature of receipts and the legal-services framework. Failure to undertake that assessment renders the proceedings and confirmed demand jurisdictionally defective and liable to be quashed.

Taxable value of services under a composite turnkey works contract was in issue, specifically whether the value of materials supplied and subject to VAT formed part of the service value. The appeal was dismissed, with no ground found to interfere with the impugned order concerning that valuation.

Complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act filed after 1 July 2024 are governed by the complaint procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The proviso to section 223(1) requires that an accused receive an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken, giving effect to audi alteram partem. Earlier ECIR registration does not displace this requirement where the complaint was filed after commencement of the new procedure. Cognizance taken without the pre-cognizance hearing is illegal and impermissible.

Seized vehicles, cash, jewellery, fixed deposits and deposited title deeds no longer required for a money-laundering investigation are to be released where other group properties have been provisionally attached to secure the stated proceeds of crime. Land parcels represented by deposited title deeds remain distinct from the attached properties. Release occurs without determining the merits of the provisional attachment or other pending proceedings.

The price recorded in a liquidator's sale certificate following a transparent, competitive e-auction conducted under NCLT supervision constitutes the true market value for Maharashtra stamp-duty purposes where registered valuers fixed the reserve price, public notice was issued, and no intentional suppression or undervaluation is shown. The Annual Statement of Rates mechanism addresses undervaluation and cannot, by itself, displace a price established through such a properly supervised liquidation sale. A Collector therefore cannot reassess the property solely because the Annual Statement of Rates produces a higher valuation.