Interconnection usage charges were not subject to service tax for periods before their inclusion within the taxable telecommunication-service definition. Delayed-payment surcharge on telephone bills did not form part of the taxable value of telephone service and therefore did not attract service tax. Public telephone calls from airports and hospitals for which no bills were raised fell within the specified service-tax exemption. Accordingly, no service-tax demand, interest or penalty could be sustained for these categories. The stated principle is that service tax cannot apply to a service not taxable during the relevant period, to amounts outside taxable value, or to services covered by a specific exemption.

Works contract services involving canal soil work and culvert construction connected with irrigation works fall within the service tax exemption for construction-related services provided to Government in relation to canals, dams or other irrigation works under Serial No. 12(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Departmental certificates and tax records established the irrigation-related nature of the services. Consequently, the services were exempt from service tax, and the related tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Notice pay recovered from an outgoing employee for failing to serve the stipulated notice period is compensatory payment for breach of the employment contract, not consideration for an independently agreed service. The employment-related stipulation remains within the employee-employer relationship, which is excluded from service tax. A declared service requires an independent contractual arrangement and consideration directly linked to an obligation to refrain from, tolerate, or perform an act. Notice pay, liquidated damages and breach penalties do not meet that test. Consequently, notice pay recovered from employees is not exigible to service tax.

SEZ exemption for taxable services supplied to an eligible SEZ unit for authorised operations cannot be denied solely because Form A-2 was not produced. Section 26 of the SEZ Act provides the substantive exemption, while Section 51 gives that framework overriding effect; a procedural condition imposed under the Finance Act cannot curtail the statutory benefit where authorised use is undisputed. Service-tax demand, interest and penalty are therefore not sustainable on that ground. Late fee for delayed ST-3 returns must also remain within the statutory ceiling under the Finance Act, 1994, requiring re-quantification of any excess levy.

Service-tax liability depends on the substantive character of a receipt and evidence that it is consideration for a taxable service, rather than accounting classification. Profit distributed to a venture-capital fund unit-holder is distinguished from consideration for fund-management services. Royalty principally for copyright use falls outside Intellectual Property Service where copyright is excluded from the relevant intellectual-property-right definition; incidental trademarks and domain rights do not alter that character. CENVAT credit remains available where taxed input services were received and used for output services despite procedural invoice or address defects. Differences between returns and audited records, without suppression, do not support extended limitation or penalties.

Section 362 CrPC does not prevent the High Court from modifying or revoking conditions in an earlier bail order because a bail order is interlocutory and does not finally dispose of the criminal case. The High Court may use inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, read with its constitutional status as a court of record, where changed circumstances require intervention to prevent injustice. A bail condition requiring a substantial fixed deposit without a prima facie finding of guilt was treated as unreasonably onerous and impermissibly recovery-oriented. In view of stalled proceedings and the absence of an early trial conclusion, the condition was revoked and the deposit with accrued interest was directed to be released.

Maintainability of a writ petition through an authorised political-party representative was recognised because the National Working Committee was the party's highest executive authority. Alternate remedies under the anti-money-laundering framework did not bar writ review of the ECIR initiation and allegedly arbitrary freezing action, particularly where merits required pleadings. Interim protection was nevertheless refused because the freezing order identified substantial transfers to multiple entities whose legality could not be decided at that stage, while other unfrozen accounts remained available and no prima facie case or balance of convenience was shown. The matter was directed to proceed on affidavits.

Review of the refusal to quash money-laundering proceedings at the pre-trial stage was not made out. The review petition had failed to cure procedural defects and was also rejected on merits, leaving the underlying proceedings unaffected.

Bail may be granted where an accused has remained in custody for about one year and two months and pre-charge evidence has not commenced despite an earlier direction to complete it. Although no wilful failure to conclude the evidence was found, substantial efforts were required to advance the proceedings. The prolonged custody warranted intervention, resulting in bail being granted and the refusal of bail being set aside.

Remittances for definite tournament services were treated as current account transactions because the agreement created fixed obligations, and unbudgeted expenditure or instalment payments did not create contingent liabilities. Findings on the dedicated South African account, reimbursements, pouring-rights revenue, EEFC credits, and the authorised dealer's processing were set aside. Liability remained for an EEFC remittance exceeding the recorded service-provider liability and for delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds, with reduced penalties for the latter. The natural-justice challenge failed because the noticees had repeated hearing opportunities, written submissions, and witness cross-examination.

A person required to provide information in an ongoing SFIO investigation has no enforceable right at the preliminary stage to obtain the Central Government's investigation orders or their underlying material. A notice under Section 217 identified the investigated companies, linked the information request to the person's financial transactions with them, and specified the records sought. Because the investigation involved multiple entities and the requested materials contained sensitive information, disclosure could prejudice the broader investigation and related proceedings. Natural justice remedies were not triggered because no prejudicial action had yet been taken; remedies may be pursued if such action follows.

Variation of preference shareholders' class rights requires valid approval, while interim protection must remain connected to the substantive relief claimed in the suit. The text notes that the High Court treated confirmation of an interim order as invalid because the class-rights variation had been duly approved and the requested interlocutory protection was disconnected from the final relief. It also identifies res judicata and issues expressly kept open as relevant legal points. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.

Appeals concerning Tribunal orders on the determination of the value of goods for customs assessment fall outside the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962. Questions involving alleged undervaluation or misdeclaration of imported goods are treated as valuation matters within that exclusion. The prescribed statutory route for such appeals is to the Supreme Court under Section 130E, rather than to the High Court under Section 130.

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an Inland Container Depot with controlled access for authorised persons is not a public place because the public has no right of entry. Its reinforced internal roads, designed for container movement and heavy machinery, do not alter that position. A Reach Stacker used exclusively within such premises is described as outside the definition of a motor vehicle where its dominant utility is container handling, it is unsuitable for ordinary roads, exceeds road-weight limits, lacks ordinary road-safety features, and is transported in dismantled form. On that analysis, a compensation claim under the Act cannot be maintained for an accident involving the Reach Stacker within the restricted depot, while claims concerning regular road-going vehicles remain preserved.

Payments to overseas rights holders for live broadcast rights did not constitute royalty where live events were not copyrightable works and the consideration was specifically allocated to Live Rights rather than a bundle of rights. The payments were not made to satellite operators and did not concern use of a satellite or any process. On this basis, such payments fell outside royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, with no tax deduction obligation under Section 195 and no resulting disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).

Internal TNMM was considered relevant because associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise export transactions involved similar functions, assets and risks. Correcting the segmental allocation of non-operating expenses showed that the associated-enterprise segment margin exceeded the non-associated-enterprise margin. The analysis also states that, even under the Transfer Pricing Officer's computation, the margin fell within the applicable Section 92C tolerance range. On materially similar prior-year facts, audited accounts and undisputed underlying figures supported acceptance of segmental results without separately audited segments. The transfer-pricing adjustment was therefore described as unsustainable and deleted.

Advertisement, marketing and sales-promotion expenditure was treated as commercially expedient where increased beverage sales increased demand for concentrates, with any benefit to bottlers or brand owners being incidental. Marketing-support rebates, discounts, service charges and reimbursements were similarly described as wholly and exclusively connected with the concentrate business. Depreciation on coolers was considered allowable where the assessee retained ownership and control and the coolers supported beverage sales linked to concentrate demand. The transfer-pricing adjustment for advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure was described as unsustainable because the proposed mark-up did not arise from a recognised transfer-pricing method and overall profitability compensated the relevant functions. Consistent earlier decisions on materially identical facts were to be followed absent distinguishing material.

Under the India-UK tax treaty's make-available requirement, borrowed advisory and consultancy services do not constitute fees for technical services unless they transfer technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes enabling the Indian recipient to apply them independently. As no such transfer was established, the borrowed-services receipts were not taxable as fees for technical services. Corporate control or shareholding alone does not create a permanent establishment under the treaty, and no other cogent evidence of an Indian permanent establishment was produced; the receipts therefore could not be taxed as business profits. Expense reimbursements without a profit element also did not give rise to taxable fees.

Administrative approval preceded the notice under section 143(2), so the assessment was not invalid. Satisfaction recorded for reopening under section 151 was sufficient absent evidence of non-application of mind, and the unsupported challenge to approval under section 148B failed. Seized records were usable against the group because it possessed and controlled the premises, accepted and deciphered the records, and the entries matched group bank transactions. However, intermingled handwritten and digital cash-book entries required a single chronological peak-credit computation to prevent double taxation; separate on-money and other additions in the assessee's hands were to be removed and the incremental annual peak assessed in the designated flagship group entity.

Protective additions based on the same facts, evidence and conclusions as corresponding substantive additions cannot survive once the substantive additions are deleted and the related assessments are quashed. Where the underlying material lacks evidentiary value and does not establish alleged commission receipts or the assessee's involvement, protective assessments are unsustainable. For the relevant assessment years, applicable jurisdictional precedent on the validity of proceedings further prevented retention of the additions where no distinguishing factual or legal basis existed. The combined effect is that protective additions must be deleted when neither the substantive assessment nor reliable evidence supports the alleged income.