Capital work-in-progress not charged to the profit-and-loss account is capital expenditure and cannot support a percentage disallowance without evidence of an inadmissible charge. Audited books not rejected cannot support ad hoc expense disallowances based solely on increased expenditure or alleged missing bills. Likewise, supplier non-filing or non-response to statutory notices does not itself disprove purchases; estimated purchase additions require rejection of books under the applicable statutory mechanism. Tax additions cannot rest on presumption, ad hoc percentages, or supplier non-response where revenue expenditure is not claimed or accounts remain unrejected.

Revisionary jurisdiction over an assessment requires the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Lender-wise particulars, confirmations, bank statements, tax returns, balance sheets and explanations obtained during assessment established that inquiries into unsecured loans had been made. An assessment order need not reproduce every item of material considered; absence of detailed discussion does not prove lack of inquiry. A completed inquiry cannot be revised merely because a deeper inquiry or different view is preferred, since inadequate inquiry differs from no inquiry. Subsequent repayment of most loans further supported transaction genuineness. The revision order was quashed.

For reassessment notices treated as deemed notices under section 148A(b), a fresh notice under section 148 must be issued within the limitation period surviving under the Income-tax Act read with the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. On the stated computation, that period expired on 13.06.2022. The notice under section 148 and the order under section 148A(d), both issued on 29.07.2022, were therefore time-barred, invalidating the notice and consequential reassessment proceedings.

Modification or body-building of a fully built motor vehicle does not itself establish manufacture or excisability; the process must be assessed under the statutory definition of manufacture and the relevant tariff note, including whether it involves body-building on a chassis. Exemption eligibility consequently requires fresh determination. Extended limitation and evasion penalties require fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or deliberate contravention intended to evade duty. Registered taxpayers who disclosed clearances and exemption claims in returns, scrutiny, and audits do not incur those consequences merely through non-payment or a mistaken legal position. Any duty liability remains confined to the normal limitation period, and personal penalty requires proven knowing involvement with confiscation-liable goods.

Maximum packing speed determines capacity-based duty liability for pan masala packing machines. The statutory scheme treats the number of machines and their maximum operable packing speed as relevant to capacity determination, deemed production and duty. Although a fresh declaration may follow subsequent changes, alteration of a machine cannot reduce its maximum-speed category where the same goods continue to be packed at the same retail sale price. A machine previously operated at 1,000 pouches per minute remained within the 751 pouches per minute and above category; reduced actual speed did not support a reduced-speed declaration or lower duty classification.

Governmental services involving registration, testing, calibration, safety checks or certification required by law qualify for service-tax exemption. Licences, permissions and registrations satisfy that requirement where they are indispensable to lawfully carrying on the business; fees paid for them are consequently exempt from service tax. Separately, a service-tax demand under the Reverse Charge Mechanism cannot be sustained on limitation where any tax paid would have been immediately available as CENVAT credit. The levy on governmental fees therefore fails on both exemption and limitation grounds.

Reverse-charge service tax payable by recipients of services from abroad under Section 66A could be discharged using permissible CENVAT credit. Because such credit utilisation was permitted, the conditions for invoking the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73 were absent. The limitation governing recovery of the principal service tax also governed consequential interest. Accordingly, recovery of interest beyond the normal limitation period was barred, and the interest demand could not be sustained.

Service-tax demand based on a departmental sales-turnover computation lacks support where the acknowledged VAT audit report records a different turnover and VAT payment, while no documentary material supports the lower figure adopted. The resulting assumed taxable-service component is unsustainable. Residual taxable-service receipts of Rs. 9,32,999 fall within the Rs. 10 lakh exemption threshold under Notification No. 33/2012-S.T. for services chargeable under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. No service tax is payable on those residual receipts, and the adjudged liability lacks a sustainable basis.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery under section 73 requires established suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, fraud, or comparable conduct. Disclosure of relevant receipts and taxable transactions in VAT and ST-3 returns, particularly where those records were considered when the proposed demand was dropped, does not establish such conduct. Recovery is consequently confined to the normal limitation period. The service-tax demand for 2015-16 was therefore barred by limitation.

Retention of jewellery and other assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires prima facie material linking the property to proceeds of crime. Continuous movement of alleged tainted funds through connected accounts and their use in acquiring assets can establish that link without transaction-wise tracing at the retention stage. Recovery from a joint-family residence or an ownership claim by a person not accused in the scheduled offence does not itself defeat seizure where the property remains connected with, or requires examination in relation to, proceeds of crime. Alleged non-service of notice does not establish a breach of natural justice without specific substantial prejudice where an effective opportunity to defend was available.

Material relied-upon documents forming part of a prosecution complaint should be placed on the appellate record when necessary to determine whether property attachment should continue pending the complaint. Their admission ensures that attachment appeals are decided with relevant complaint materials available for consideration. However, a party's delayed request to file documents already known to and held by it, particularly when made at final hearing, may justify costs. The documents may therefore be considered for the attachment issue while the financial consequence for belated filing remains enforceable.

Sanction under criminal procedure law for taking cognizance of money-laundering offences remains a live issue where prosecution engages the statutory protection available to public servants. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the special leave petition after noting the High Court's correct statement of law, while expressly leaving all issues and contentions of both sides open. The trial must proceed without being influenced by observations contained in specified portions of the High Court's order.

FEMA's later omission of a provision did not invalidate a complaint and show-cause notice issued before the omission became effective. Charitable trusts fall within the inclusive definition of "person", and rupee borrowings from non-resident trustees that remain outstanding beyond the prescribed period breach the borrowing and lending regulations, notwithstanding non-repatriation terms. Civil penalty follows an established statutory or regulatory contravention without proof of wilfulness or other mens rea; welfare objectives and a claimed technical breach do not negate liability. The contravention and penalty liability remained, although the penalty quantum was reduced.

Committee of Creditors approval of eligibility criteria is required before Form G is published, because the invitation for resolution applicants must conform to approved criteria under the insolvency framework. Where the CIRP period expires without a resolution plan and no timely extension or exclusion has been obtained, liquidation follows; stakeholder deadlock or delay does not indefinitely defer that consequence. Going-concern status depends on actual operations, employees, revenue and trading activity, not asset ownership alone. A pending application alleging fraudulent or malicious initiation does not automatically suspend liquidation, and suspended-board non-impleadment requires demonstrable prejudice. Further resolution efforts remain within the Committee of Creditors' commercial decision-making.

Committee of Creditors' commercial decision to replace a resolution professional must be respected where it complies with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and applicable regulations. Although a resolution professional must act independently, the office carries no vested right to continue; replacement is objectionable only where it requires conduct contrary to the Code or regulations. Claims for professional fees and CIRP expenses require factual assessment of work performed, acceptable fees, expenses and objections, and require adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority. Potential effects on professional reputation are relevant when considering adverse observations concerning delay in replacement.

Central Sales Tax recovery under Section 9(2) uses the procedural machinery of the applicable State sales-tax law but does not create a statutory first charge over a dealer's property or incorporate the substantive charge under the Gujarat VAT law. Recovery machinery alone cannot create a security interest. The Explanation to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code definition of security interest is clarificatory and retrospective, excluding interests arising solely by operation of law unless supported by an agreement or arrangement. Consequently, outstanding Central Sales Tax dues without contractual security cannot constitute secured debt, and the State Tax Department cannot claim secured-creditor status or distribution priority.

One-time settlement by a personal guarantor with the sole financial creditor does not terminate or alter liquidation absent a recognised statutory route, and does not make the guarantor a financial creditor without debt assignment or substitution. After the financial creditor's claim is satisfied, forfeited earnest money deposit forms part of the liquidation estate and must be restored for statutory distribution. Approved remuneration for an erstwhile liquidator's claim-processing, auction and related work may be paid from the estate. An admitted operational creditor participates in the statutory waterfall, while the guarantor, including as asset purchaser or promoter, has no priority and may receive only any surplus after statutory claims.

Express liquidation-auction terms permitting forfeiture of the entire deposited amount upon a successful bidder's payment default remain effective despite Schedule I's ceiling on earnest money deposit. The deposited sum may include both earnest money and part sale consideration where the bidder voluntarily accepted the stipulated terms. An as-is-where-is sale, coupled with prior disclosure of title-related concerns, prevents reliance on those concerns to justify delayed payment. Repeated assurances without demonstrated financial capacity, proceedings involving another entity that do not prevent payment, and unsupported claims of unequal treatment do not defeat forfeiture. No refund is due where the bidder fails to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period.

Consent terms in oppression and mismanagement proceedings may resolve an appeal challenging findings on amendments to articles of association and a rights issue. Where parties jointly place settlement terms before the appellate forum with supporting affidavits, the terms may be incorporated into the disposal of the appeal without an independent determination of the challenged merits. The settlement can govern the parties' inter se rights, liabilities and future conduct, while the challenged findings may be set aside by consent.

Oral agreements between companies are not barred by the Companies Act, 2013 where no statutory provision requires writing. The repealed corporate-execution provision under the 1956 Act was not preserved, while section 21 governs authorisation to sign written documents rather than mandating written form for every corporate contract. General contract law may therefore govern concluded reciprocal promises. A specific pleading that a company representative was authorised cannot be rejected merely because no authority letter is produced; the validity of that authority requires evidentiary determination and cannot alone justify plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11.