Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, read with its overriding provision, prohibits the institution or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor during the insolvency moratorium. Income-tax revisional proceedings initiated or continued during that period cannot be sustained. A revisional order passed after commencement of the moratorium was set aside without examination of the proposed revision on merits. The proceedings may be revived and reframed after the moratorium ceases, if permitted by law, with a reasonable opportunity of hearing; all merits issues remain open.

GST reimbursement for ongoing contracts awarded before GST was introduced could not be denied merely because tender rates were stated to include applicable taxes at the time of bidding. Tender conditions did not cover a tax that did not exist when the work order was issued, and a conflicting pre-bid clarification could not override those conditions. Government measures for ongoing works contemplated compensation for the net additional GST burden through a supplementary agreement. Rejection after referral for chartered-accountant verification, while similarly placed contractors received reimbursement, was arbitrary and inconsistent with equal treatment. Reimbursement was due to the extent verified by the respondents' chartered accountant.

SEZ units covered by the State's 2002 policy were promised complete exemption from stamp duty and registration fee, including for leases transferring an interest in land. Formal statutory recognition through the Gujarat Special Economic Zone Ordinance, 2004 did not displace the pre-existing policy benefit for lease deeds executed earlier. Denying exemption solely because a lease pre-dated the Ordinance would undermine the investment-inducement purpose of the policy and unjustifiably distinguish similarly placed SEZ units by execution date. The fiscal exemption therefore extends to such pre-Ordinance leases, with consequential refund of stamp duty and registration fee.

Section 35(4)(b)'s six-month period for claiming a refund does not prevent an assessing authority, during assessment or reassessment, from correcting an error that resulted in a taxpayer receiving a deduction or exemption below the legally available amount. The authority must determine the correct tax liability and rectify mistakes even where rectification benefits the taxpayer; retention of amounts legally due cannot justify a restrictive reading. Refunds legitimately due must therefore be granted despite expiry of the six-month claim period.

Condonation of a 483-day delay in filing a revision petition requires a satisfactory explanation for the entire period beyond the 180-day statutory limitation. Medical circumstances that do not adequately explain prolonged inaction are insufficient, particularly where the petitioner initiated the underlying Tribunal appeal and was required to pursue the statutory remedy diligently. The delay would have brought the challenge more than two years after the Tribunal order; condonation was therefore refused and the application rejected.

Central excise duty and penalty for alleged clandestine clearances cannot rest on unreliable seized records. The panchnama, ledger and other quantification documents lacked proved recovery and contents, were not supplied, and were undermined by contradictory evidence on the panchnama's execution. The proprietor's statement was not inculpatory because the entries were described as rough, of unknown authorship, and unavailable in copy. Excluding turnover derived from those materials, clearances for both relevant years remained within the small scale industry exemption limit. Consequently, clandestine clearances were not established, and no duty or penalty was payable.

Clean Environment Cess liability on closing stock concerns taxability or excisability and is therefore treated as a determination relating to the rate of excise duty. Section 35G excludes High Court appeals on such questions, while Section 35L(2) places them within the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, an appeal challenging cess liability on closing stock must be filed before the Supreme Court and is not maintainable before the High Court.

Interest on genuine EMI loans or advances, including compensatory or penal interest for delayed instalments, is consideration for the use of money rather than a separate credit-card or tolerance service. Routing disbursal, accounting or recovery through a credit-card account does not alter the transaction's substantive character as a bilateral loan. Such interest remains excluded from service-tax value before 1 July 2012 and falls within the negative-list treatment of lending thereafter. Extended limitation and penalties do not apply where the dispute is interpretational, transactions were recorded and disclosed, and fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression or intent to evade tax is not established.

The pre-1 April 2011 definition of input service under the CENVAT Credit Rules covered services used in activities relating to business and did not require a direct nexus with exported output services. Employee group insurance could therefore qualify for Rule 5 refund, subject to verification of the amount and other statutory conditions. Club membership services require evidence of actual business use, such as customer entertainment or business meetings; employee health, fitness or recreation use alone does not establish eligibility. Rule 5 refund is confined to eligible accumulated credit for the claimed refund period, excluding credit relating to services received after that period.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is examined in relation to assets allegedly acquired through layered share transactions involving bribe proceeds. Statements recorded under statutory powers, banking and trading records, inflated share prices, investments in non-functioning companies, and purchaser funding from external sources support a prima facie allegation that proceeds of crime were projected as legitimate long-term capital gains. Interconnected transactions attract the statutory presumption, while the appellant's role in the university trust weakens a claim of lack of influence. Pending scheduled-offence and money-laundering trials support preservation of the attached assets.

Prior setting aside of seizure or freezing on a procedural, non-merits ground does not bar a subsequent attachment under the PMLA. Quashing predicate-offence proceedings for specified individuals does not extend to a firm or other individuals against whom proceedings continue. Compensation paid for mining, environmental or forest-law violations neither compounds alleged money-laundering offences nor offsets identified proceeds of crime. Bank deposits and term deposits linked to ore sale proceeds may remain attached as proceeds of crime or equivalent value pending final adjudication, preserving property for possible confiscation.

PMLA bail restrictions may be outweighed in appropriate circumstances by prolonged custody and a serious chronic medical condition requiring repeated hospital treatment. The available material did not overcome the statutory conditions on merits, but nearly ten months' incarceration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the limited allegation of parking tainted money supported release on bail. The absence of arraignment in predicate-offence proceedings formed part of the relevant context.

Section 37A permits temporary seizure of equivalent domestic assets where recorded reasons to believe support suspected contravention of the prohibition on acquiring, holding, owning, possessing or transferring foreign exchange or foreign assets outside India. Information concerning foreign entities, beneficial ownership, foreign-held profits and an overseas decree can provide the required prima facie basis, notwithstanding a pending challenge to that decree. Its application to foreign exchange or assets continuously held abroad after Section 37A commenced is prospective, even where the underlying transactions pre-date commencement. Foreign employment permits alone do not displace the statutory residence test; the estate's status, rather than an administratrix's personal residential status, governs the assessment.

Section 32A immunity and the clean-slate principle extend to a corporate debtor sold as a going concern in liquidation, subject to satisfaction of statutory conditions. Pre-sale investigations, proceedings, non-compliances, penalties and liabilities that do not survive the insolvency process cannot be imposed on the purchaser merely because the sale occurs in liquidation rather than through CIRP. Requests for waivers or concessions under other statutory regimes must be made to the relevant statutory authorities.

Death of an individual resolution applicant after CoC approval does not, by itself, make a resolution plan unimplementable or create a ground for liquidation under Section 33(1). The plan's continued viability must be assessed within the statutory framework, including whether an eligible, qualified and willing heir can implement it without Section 29A disqualification. Liquidation should not be ordered automatically where the plan or resolution request does not address that contingency. A pending Section 12A withdrawal application following a CoC-approved settlement must be considered according to law before liquidation; dismissing it as infructuous is unsustainable. The CIRP therefore remains revived pending adjudication of the withdrawal request.

A deposit made expressly without prejudice after a Section 7 insolvency petition is reserved for orders does not constitute an unconditional admission of liability or default. Where the corporate debtor disputes maintainability, the existence of financial debt and default, those objections require determination and cannot be displaced by closure of the proceeding based solely on the deposit. Claims for interest, default interest and legal expenses must each have a contractual or statutory basis and be legally recoverable before they can support a financial debt. Permission to pursue legally maintainable claims does not adjudicate them. Closure without deciding the disputed threshold requirements is legally unsustainable.

Dissolution of a partnership at will by written notice requires the firm's property to be applied first to debts and liabilities, with the remaining surplus distributed according to partners' respective rights. The dissolution date fixes the ascertainment of business profits and losses but does not limit an outgoing partner's entitlement to the value of immovable partnership assets as at that date. Continued use or retention of those assets by former partners through a new firm does not displace liquidation and final settlement. Assets may be retained only upon payment of the entitled partner's market-value share after liability adjustments; otherwise, they must be sold and the proceeds distributed.

Social Welfare Surcharge does not arise where basic customs duty on imported goods is exempt under Notification No. 24/2015-Customs through debit of a MEIS duty credit scrip. The debit records the value of the basic customs duty exemption availed; it is not payment of basic customs duty. Because the surcharge is computed by reference to basic customs duty, no Social Welfare Surcharge is payable when that duty is fully exempt. The conclusion favours the importer claiming the MEIS-based exemption.

Before 3 June 2016, the RNI-registration requirement for newsprint applied at clearance rather than import; its later extension to imports of warehoused goods operated prospectively. Serial No. 264 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. granted newsprint exemption without an RNI-registration or Actual User condition. For newsprint not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the Department bore the initial burden of proving unlawful import, diversion, or clearance through dummy users. Without cogent evidence of excess goods, local-market diversion, illicit consideration, or dummy users, serial-number discrepancies alone could not sustain confiscation or penalties.

Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 expressly limits penalties to Rs. 50,000. Penalties proposed under other Customs Act provisions and licence cancellation were not imposed and were not challenged. The statutory ceiling cannot be exceeded, and an earlier order cannot displace the Regulation's clear maximum. The penalty therefore stands restricted to Rs. 50,000.