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.

Formulated natural astaxanthin grades standardised with carriers, stabilisers and, in some forms, emulsification, micro-encapsulation or spray-drying features are classified as food preparations under Tariff Item 2106 90 99. Classification follows the relevant heading terms, chapter notes and HSN guidance: Heading 3203 covers colouring matter and preparations mainly used for colouring, whereas the products' specifications identify dietary-supplement, food, beverage and nutraceutical uses. As the grades are neither crude algal extracts nor separately chemically defined compounds and are not shown to have a principal colouring function, they do not qualify as non-synthetic food colours under Tariff Item 3203 00 20.

Section 114 penalties for attempted improper export require a positive act or omission connected with the export or its abetment. Section 114AA further requires knowing or intentional use of a materially false declaration, statement or document. Customs Broker verification failures alone do not establish liability where KYC and IEC documents were obtained, bank-related details were verified, and the broker cooperated with the investigation. In the absence of allegations or evidence of prior knowledge, collusion, assistance in goods substitution, or other active participation, penalties for improper export and false declarations are unsustainable.

Penalty for alleged abetment of gold smuggling could not rest on statements recorded under the Customs Act unless the statutory safeguards for admissibility were met, including examination of the maker, a determination of admissibility, and an effective opportunity for cross-examination, unless an exception applied. Electronic call records and WhatsApp chats also required the prescribed certification. Faulty screening equipment, the absence of assigned screening duties as a proper officer, and lack of independent evidence linking the appellant to possession, handling, or dealing in smuggled gold further undermined the allegation. The penalty for abetment was therefore unsustainable.

Section 110(2) of the Customs Act requires seized goods to be returned if notice under Section 124(a) is not issued within six months, unless a valid extension, capped at a further six months, is granted. Provisional release under Section 110A does not displace that statutory consequence. Machines and spare parts not covered by a provisional-release order cannot remain detained after expiry of the maximum notice period. Continued detention beyond that period was treated as unlawful, with release requiring execution of a bond equivalent to the goods' value.

Duty drawback entitlement arises on completion of export, when goods leave Indian territorial waters and title passes to the buyer. Subsequent non-arrival at the intended destination does not itself defeat drawback, particularly where sale proceeds are realised through the applicable rupee trade remittance mechanism and have not been rejected or reversed under foreign-exchange controls. Recovery provisions for erroneous or excess drawback differ from those addressing unrealised export proceeds. Goods already exported fall outside confiscation provisions confined to goods to be taken out of India; absent confiscability, the basis for related penalties, interest, and personal penalties fails.