Actual diesel-cost reimbursements, where diesel is supplied at market cost and paid against petrol-pump bills, constitute pure-agent expense reimbursements rather than consideration for a taxable service. Such reimbursements are therefore not liable to service tax. Service-tax demands cannot rest solely on unverified third-party income-tax data or assumed taxable values. Without independent inquiry establishing the services supplied, their recipients, and the taxable value, the demand lacks an evidentiary and taxable foundation and is unsustainable.

Token amounts collected from designated roadside establishments under a passenger-facility scheme did not constitute consideration for a taxable declared service. Taxability under the Finance Act, 1994 requires an activity undertaken by one person for another for consideration. The prescribed provision of passenger amenities and regulated bus halts served safety, hygiene and administrative purposes, without an identifiable service-provider and service-recipient relationship or quid pro quo. Permitting buses to stop at approved locations was integral to passenger transportation and did not grant an exclusive right, amount to promotion or marketing, or constitute renting of property. The service-tax demand was therefore unsustainable.

Entry No. 13 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST exempts construction, repair, maintenance, renovation or alteration of roads used by the general public from service tax. Work orders and Form 26AS records linking receipts to repair and renewal of public roads undertaken for the Public Works Department support the exemption. Reliance on a work order from a different financial year does not negate the qualifying nature of the relevant services; the resulting tax demand cannot be sustained.

Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess paid on eligible taxable input services used for export of goods fall within the refund mechanism under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Finance Acts of 2015 and 2016 deem these cesses to be service tax and extend applicable service-tax refund provisions to them. Applying the notification consistently with that statutory deeming treatment preserves export neutrality and prevents exclusion of the cesses from refunds available for services used in exporting goods.

Service-tax liability in joint development arrangements depends on contractual rights, consideration, period-wise taxability, correct classification as construction service or works contract, and valuation without duplicating values already taxed. Land or development rights may constitute non-monetary consideration only after taxable character is established. Reverse-charge liability requires proof of each statutory prerequisite, including qualifying GTA documentation, provider status for security and legal services, and supply by an independent manpower provider; ledger entries alone are insufficient. Extended limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression intended to evade tax, assessed separately for distinct transactions. Penalties depend on the ultimate findings on liability and limitation.

Unauthorised foreign-exchange contraventions require proof that seized currency represents proceeds of prohibited transactions. A documented cash withdrawal and cash-book entries may explain possession of currency, while failure to prove seizure undermines reliance on recovered cash. Presumptions for seized documents apply only after independent admissibility is established; loose sheets that are not books of account cannot be validated by statutory presumption. A retracted statement requires proof of voluntariness and corroborative material. Burden shifting applies only once the Department proves the foundational act requiring permission. These evidentiary requirements prevent proof of contravention through unproved seizures, inadmissible records, or uncorroborated statements.

Suspended directors who are personal guarantors and unsuccessful resolution applicants may challenge resolution-plan approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. E-bidding terms may prevent unilateral post-closure bid revisions, while the Committee of Creditors may seek clarifications and permit compliance-related modifications without reopening financial bidding. Approved plans are not displaced unless statutory non-compliance or material irregularity is established; commercial decisions on negotiations, viability and compliant valuations ordinarily remain within the Committee's domain. Valuations conducted through the prescribed process, continuation of a retained resolution professional, and optional special-purpose-company structures do not by themselves invalidate a plan. A consortium must retain majority shareholding during implementation, and acceptance of a declined one-time settlement cannot be compelled after plan approval.

Fixed-deposit withdrawal entitlement under the interim direction belonged to the appellant in the civil appeal, who was expressly permitted to apply before the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with entitlement. The direction distinguished that appellant from the corporate debtor's representative, identified as the depositor. The suspended director could not claim withdrawal, and the deposited amount with accrued interest was to be remitted to the civil-appeal appellant accordingly.

Operational debt and default for a Section 9 insolvency application may be established through contemporaneous invoices, e-way bills, tax deduction records, input tax credit claims and the corporate debtor's ledger. A discrepancy limited to the PIN code in address details does not, by itself, negate evidence of supply where the registered address otherwise appears and no timely objection to non-receipt was made. The debtor's ledger may establish that the unpaid operational debt exceeds the Section 4 threshold. A subsequent request for reconciliation does not displace contemporaneous accounting and tax evidence supporting admission.

Creditor-requested Look Out Circulars cannot be used as coercive debt-recovery measures against personal guarantors. The rights to movement and overseas travel under Articles 19 and 21 may be restricted only by law or a competent judicial order and cannot be waived through private guarantee arrangements. An unexecuted debt recovery certificate and pending personal-guarantee proceedings, without fraud allegations, criminal process, or a travel-restraint order, do not provide a lawful basis for continued foreign-travel restrictions. Requiring guarantors to disclose travel plans to creditors lacks legal basis and may intrude on privacy. Each travel prevention under such a circular creates a fresh cause of action, preventing delay and laches from barring challenge.

Section 7 admission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires prima facie documentary proof that a financial debt became due, remains unpaid and exceeds the statutory threshold; final claim quantification, accounting disagreements and profitability do not by themselves negate default. An authenticated Information Utility Record of Default is independently sufficient proof unless rebutted by clear, cogent and compelling material; loan and account documents may collectively establish default on a preponderance-of-probabilities standard. A legally assigned financial debt permits the assignee to proceed as financial creditor, while a finally determined assignment dispute may be barred by issue estoppel. Section 62 review is confined to legal questions and does not permit reassessment of concurrent factual findings absent perversity, lack of evidence, ignored material evidence or an erroneous legal standard.

Share-purchase relief under Section 242(2)(b) is consequential upon an application under Section 241 and reasoned satisfaction of the conditions in Section 242(1): oppressive or prejudicial conduct, together with the just-and-equitable winding-up criterion and unfair prejudice to affected members. Consent to valuation or willingness to exit does not displace those statutory preconditions. A statutory buyout also requires independent judicial assessment of valuation reliability; failure to object does not remove that duty. Valuation must reflect the company's current economic position or be sufficiently proximate to the determination date. A stale report merely resubmitted later cannot substitute for a fresh valuation.

Priority between competing claims to shares turns on whether proprietary security was actually created. A non-disposal arrangement, personal guarantee, or unspecified negative lien creates only contractual or personal obligations unless it clearly identifies property and establishes an enforceable charge. A later pledge of identified shares, supported by delivery, creates the pawnee's special proprietary interest under the Contract Act and takes priority over such unsecured claims. A subsequent lending facility that discharges earlier lending and pledge arrangements is distinct rather than an assignment of prior security. An unrecorded oral undertaking does not extinguish the later pledge, and one co-owner's guarantee cannot charge jointly held shares without the other co-owner's consent. Asset restoration exceeding the loan claim removes an equitable basis for further claims.

Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts the burden of proving lawful importation to the owner only after the Department establishes that seized gold is of foreign origin. Foreign markings, or alleged markings, without corroborative evidence of illicit importation do not establish that gold is smuggled. Where primary gold and cut pieces bear no clear foreign markings and no further evidence proves foreign origin or unlawful importation, the Department fails to discharge its initial burden. The statutory presumption does not arise, rendering confiscation and penalty unsustainable.

Written acceptance of reassessment under section 17(5) only removes the proper officer's duty to issue a speaking order; it does not waive an importer's statutory right to challenge reassessment, rejection of declared value, or enhancement. Rejection of transaction value requires the proper officer to form and record reasonable doubt under Rule 12 and comply with mandatory communication safeguards. Acceptance letters and NIDB or contemporaneous-import data alone do not establish comparability or provide cogent, justiciable support for enhancement, particularly without particulars of commercial quantity, quality, GSM, and relevant timing. Declared values therefore cannot be displaced on unsubstantiated acceptance letters or external valuation data alone.

Customs penalties for facilitating undervalued imports require material proving blameworthy conduct, knowledge of illegality, or participation in the unlawful arrangement. Merely introducing a freight forwarder or supplying a contact who may arrange another person's importer-exporter code does not contravene the Customs Act. Without evidence that the person procured the code, joined the illegal activity, or knew of import undervaluation, allegations do not establish criminal conspiracy or culpable involvement. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA are therefore unsustainable on those facts.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a material part of the cause of action to arise within the court's territorial limits. Seizure of imported goods, classification, BIS certification requirements, and decisions on provisional release arising at ICD Dadri under Customs Noida do not create jurisdiction in Delhi merely because central authorities are located there, CBIC policy is alleged to be inconsistent, or similar goods are cleared elsewhere. Forum conveniens applies only where concurrent jurisdiction exists, not where territorial jurisdiction is absent. Challenges must therefore proceed before the appropriate forum.

Foreign-exchange rebate paid to export buyers under a pre-existing agreement to share gains above an agreed threshold is treated as a genuine business payment where its contractual basis, accounting and genuineness are undisputed. A gain-sharing arrangement need not also allocate losses absent a statutory prohibition, and labels such as rebate or discount do not alter its character. The matching principle is satisfied where the payment and export revenue arise in the same accounting year. Excessive ad hoc disallowances of business expenses may warrant moderation on the facts.

Reassessment after the extended statutory period following a completed scrutiny assessment requires recorded reasons to identify the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. Reliance solely on an excise duty or VAT adjustment reduced from sales, without identifying any undisclosed material fact, does not satisfy that condition. On the stated facts, the reassessment proceedings were invalid and quashed.

The first proviso to Section 149(1) retains the limitation period under the pre-1 April 2021 reassessment regime for assessment years beginning on or before that date. For Assessment Year 2015-16, where alleged escaped income exceeded the applicable threshold, the former six-year period ended on 31 March 2022. Consequently, a reassessment notice issued on 20 March 2024 fell outside the surviving limitation period, invalidating assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 and the consequential assessment.