Substitution of attached proceeds of crime with a bank guarantee does not justify release of identifiable immovable property under the PMLA. The statutory scheme aims to prevent enjoyment of assets derived from illegal activity and preserve them for confiscation or restitution. Releasing such property for use or transfer may enable its depletion, generate further funds, and legitimise income derived from it, undermining those objectives. The request for de-attachment and substitution with an equivalent bank guarantee was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Good corporate governance is central to development and depends on responsible governance, ethical practices, transparency, institutional accountability and professional excellence. Company Secretaries have an expanding role in strengthening governance practices through professional expertise. Professional institutions should promote governance standards, support institutional excellence, and evolve their practices in response to changing requirements. Their wider contribution lies in fostering a culture of ethical entrepreneurship, responsibility, transparency and sound governance.

Under the PMLA, a provisional attachment cannot be confirmed by relying on a subsequent FIR absent from the recorded reasons to believe, attachment order, and original complaint. Such an FIR may create a separate basis for fresh attachment but cannot retrospectively validate an earlier attachment. Attachment of alleged proceeds of crime also cannot continue once the underlying scheduled offences are not established or no longer survive. Quashing of the foundational FIRs or filing of closure reports extinguishes the basis for PMLA proceedings and consequential attachment. On these grounds, the provisional attachment and its confirmation were set aside.

Reverse-charge liability on foreign or intermediary bank charges deducted while transmitting export proceeds requires a taxable service provider-recipient relationship. Where the exporter neither engaged the banks nor owed them consideration, deductions from export proceeds do not establish that relationship and do not attract service tax under Banking and Other Financial Services. Regulatory dossier preparation and compilation for overseas pharmaceutical approvals must be classified by the activity actually performed, not the provider's technical qualifications. Preparing documentation from available information or published literature, without advice or scientific or technical assistance, is not Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service. The related service-tax demands, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Exemption for construction of civil structures or other original works does not extend to a work order limited to transporting boulders, even where transportation, fixing and levelling support a Government or governmental-authority project. The activity remains outside the original-works exemption because it does not itself constitute construction or execution of original works. A subcontractor performing transportation for a railway-track project remains liable for service tax; use of that service by the main contractor as an input service does not alter its taxability. Service-tax liability on the subcontracted transportation work was therefore sustained.

Annual Production Capacity determination under the applicable rules is an administrative exercise rather than an appealable order; failure to challenge it therefore does not bar a refund claim. Duty imposed on stenter galleries, being unconstitutional, must be excluded when capacity is redetermined. The unjust-enrichment bar and refund provisions governing duty recovery do not apply where the levy itself was unconstitutional. Annual Production Capacity must be recalculated excluding galleries, consequential duty determined, and the refund claim processed. No interest is payable until the refund claim is determined. Questions concerning rectification applications remain unanswered.

Recovery of irregular or excess suo motu credit under Notification No. 39/2001-CE is treated as recovery of excise duty erroneously refunded where the credit is not reversed. The limitation applicable to erroneous refunds therefore governs such recovery. A recovery notice issued more than five years after credit was taken was time-barred, rendering the related demand, interest and penalty unsustainable. Annual differential-duty credit taken after submission of the prescribed statement and prolonged inaction by the jurisdictional officer was treated as compliant with the notification. Revenue authorities' cited decisions on different forms of suo motu adjustment or refund did not apply. The impugned order was consequently set aside.

Vicarious liability of a company director for cheque dishonour requires a complaint to specifically aver that the director was both in charge of, and responsible to, the company for conducting its business when the offence occurred. Mere directorship or a general allegation that all directors managed day-to-day affairs is insufficient. The complaint must also disclose the identity of the person who drew or signed the cheque. As no individual role was attributed to the director and no cheque signatory was identified, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process and the cheque-dishonour proceeding was quashed against that director.

Section 74 of the CGST Act permits extended limitation only where the show cause notice states specific facts and material establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Figures and boilerplate statutory language alone do not disclose the charge. The extended period is jurisdictional, and the Revenue must plead the relevant statutory limb and factual basis in the notice itself. A counter-affidavit, later submissions, personal hearing, or adjudication order cannot cure deficiencies in the notice.

Section 73 limitation for issuing a show-cause notice must exclude only the portion of the pandemic period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 that overlaps with the applicable statutory limitation period. The deadline is extended only by that overlapping duration, not by the entire excluded period in every case. For financial year 2020-21, this produces a two-month extension, while financial year 2021-22 remains unaffected because limitation commenced after the excluded period. Section 74 requires identification of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression rather than mechanical recital of all alternatives.

GST adjudication may use AI for research, drafting assistance and organisation of material, but AI cannot replace the statutory authority's independent application of mind. AI-generated authorities, statutory propositions and summaries must be verified against authentic primary sources for accuracy, relevance, factual context and continuing legal validity. Adjudicating authorities must consider the taxpayer's cited precedents and record reasons when rejecting them. Human oversight is indispensable: the issuing officer remains responsible for the legality and reasoning of every notice or order, and AI output cannot be mechanically adopted.

Company formation in India requires compliance-led planning because entity choice affects liability, taxation, ownership, governance, fundraising, employment obligations, reporting, and regulated-market access. Ownership arrangements, statutory records, financial controls, tax systems, employment documentation, and workplace policies should be established early. Sector-specific permissions and foreign-investment requirements may affect the proposed business model and funding structure. Compliance should remain continuous through formation-stage, recurring, and event-driven obligations, with periodic reviews before material transactions such as fundraising, ownership changes, expansion, or acquisitions.

ISO 37001:2016 provides an Anti-Bribery Management System framework for preventing, detecting and responding to bribery through proportionate, risk-based controls. Implementation requires leadership commitment, an anti-bribery policy, risk assessment, employee training, documented information and measurable objectives. Core operational measures include third-party due diligence, financial and non-financial controls, and confidential reporting channels. Monitoring, internal audits, management reviews, investigations and corrective actions support continual improvement. Certification may demonstrate due diligence and strengthen governance, but does not guarantee that bribery will never occur.

Vicarious criminal liability of a company director for cheque dishonour requires foundational, specific averments that the director was both in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence occurred. These cumulative requirements under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are strictly construed because they depart from the ordinary rule against vicarious criminal liability. Mere directorship, general allegations of day-to-day involvement, or an unspecified assertion that accused persons issued the cheque is insufficient. The complaint must identify the cheque signatory or attribute a distinct role, participation, control, or responsibility in the relevant transaction; otherwise, proceedings against the director may amount to abuse of process.

Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. permits an eligible manufacturer to take credit in the account current for an annual differential refund, subject to filing and verification of prescribed statements. Where the annual statement is filed within time but the jurisdictional authority does not determine or communicate the claim, subsequent suo motu credit of the differential amount is not unsustainable merely because of that inaction. Recovery of irregular or excess refund credit is governed as erroneous refund recovery under the Central Excise Act limitation framework. Even under the extended period, proceedings must begin within five years from the date of credit; a notice issued after that period is time-barred, with consequential interest and penalty also unsustainable.

Excess excise duty collected by including stenter galleries in annual production capacity is treated as an unconstitutional levy where galleries must be excluded under the capacity-determination rules. Annual capacity determination is an administrative exercise rather than an appealable order; failure to challenge it therefore does not bar a refund claim. The statutory doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to such recovery of duty collected without legal authority. Annual production capacity must be redetermined after excluding galleries, and the resulting refund claim processed without requiring proof that the duty incidence was not passed on.

Marketing and promotional services were treated as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005, because they fell within the applicable service category and Board circular framework. The Revenue's challenge repeated earlier contentions and did not identify grounds to disturb the Tribunal's classification. The precedent invoked by the Revenue was not comparable and did not support contrary treatment of the services.

Service-tax penalties for payment under an incorrect taxable-service classification were unwarranted where the full tax liability and accrued interest had been paid before issuance of the show cause notice. Recorded payments under other service heads, subsequent payment of the balance, and confirmation by the jurisdictional officer established discharge of the entire liability. As tax was being paid, although under a different classification, the extended limitation period was unavailable and issuing the notice was unnecessary. The penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Entry 12(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST confines the exemption to specified construction, erection, commissioning, installation and related services supplied for civil structures or other original works predominantly intended for non-commercial use. Transportation, fixing and levelling of boulders for a railway project do not constitute construction of a civil structure or execution of original works for this purpose. A subcontractor remains independently liable for service tax on taxable transportation services, even where those services are used by a principal contractor in a larger government railway project. Subcontract status does not extend the project-level exemption to otherwise taxable transportation work.

Limitation for an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) commences when the aggrieved assessee receives the adjudicating order. Postal tracking and acknowledgement records distinguished delivery to an intermediary sub-post office from actual delivery at the assessee's branch-office address. Receipt at the intermediary post office could not be treated as receipt by the assessee. On the recorded actual delivery date, the appeal was within the prescribed limitation period, making dismissal as time-barred unsustainable and requiring fresh consideration on merits.