Partial reverse charge makes a proprietary subcontractor liable for half the service tax on works contract services, with the recipient responsible for the balance. Tax already deposited by the subcontractor is accounted for in calculating liability. The extended limitation period cannot be invoked where non-payment arose from a bona fide belief supported by conflicting tribunal decisions and suppression is not established. In those circumstances, a demand for the extended period is time-barred.

Recipients of manpower supply and works contract services bear the specified reverse-charge liability even when they provide the main services to customers through subcontractors and pay tax as providers. Revenue neutrality does not extinguish that liability. An extended limitation period requires a prescribed ground involving intent to evade, and suppression must be deliberate. Revenue neutrality arising from credit available to the same assessee negates intent to evade; incorrect self-assessment alone does not establish deliberate suppression. In those circumstances, the extended period and suppression penalty are unsustainable.

Extended limitation requires proof of conscious and deliberate withholding, not mere non-payment or inaction. Where relevant accounts and returns were disclosed and no such withholding was established, recovery, interest and penalties are time-barred even if Cenvat credit is disallowed on merits. Specified departmental communications without a document identification number are invalid unless an exception applies, but remain effective until set aside by a competent court or authority. Service tax demands cannot rest solely on differences between accounting revenue and returns, because project completion accounting and the earlier of invoice or payment determine different timings. Construction service abatement requires no Cenvat credit on inputs and inclusion of land value in the amount charged; credit on input services does not breach the input condition, and the department bears the burden of proving a breach.

Cenvat credit for manpower supply services cannot be denied solely because the provider has not remitted tax, where the recipient satisfies the payment and documentation requirements. Wages paid directly to supplied personnel may form part of the gross charge. Rule 5 of the Service Tax Valuation Rules was declared ultra vires, while Section 67 was amended from 1 April 2015; VAT and service tax are treated as mutually exclusive for sales of materials. Endorsed Form A-2 authorises procurement of specified services by SEZ units without upfront service tax. The extended limitation period requires evidence of specified conduct, such as wilful suppression or fraud; incorrect self-assessment alone is insufficient. Investigation deposits obtained without justification from recipients towards providers' liabilities are refundable.

Service-tax classification depends on the essential character of an activity, not its location or the recipient's business. Auxiliary civil, mechanical, maintenance and transport work does not become mining service merely because it occurs in a mining area. Composite contracts involving labour and transfer of goods fall under works contract services. The extended limitation period requires specified conduct, such as suppression of facts, with intent to evade tax; disclosure and tax payment are relevant to that assessment. Penalty under section 78 requires conduct involving intent to evade tax, while payment, bona fide belief and concession of other liabilities are relevant to penalty under section 77.

Service tax exemptions cover qualifying dam and irrigation works supplied to government, public road works, and repair or renovation of civil structures supplied to governmental authorities. A medical college subcontract is taxable where the applicable exemption has been withdrawn; tax paid by the main contractor does not itself exempt the subcontractor. Reverse charge applies to qualifying goods transport agency and advocate services, not merely to supplier invoices, loading expenses or payments to other professionals. Revenue must establish that labour and subcontract payments are for taxable services; accounting descriptions or assumptions alone do not suffice. Royalty deductions alone do not establish a taxable government service or a grant of natural-resource rights. The extended limitation period is unavailable where disputes involve statutory interpretation, returns are regularly filed, information is drawn from books and no fraud or suppression is established.

Before 1 July 2012, a residential complex required buildings with more than twelve residential units, common areas and specified facilities within an approved layout. From that date, a self-contained single residential unit outside a residential complex was exempt. Separately contracted houses on demarcated plots do not become part of a residential complex solely because they share gates or amenities; agreements, title documents and approved plans are material. Abatement for residential flats depends on the applicable notification and conditions: 67% for April to June 2010, 75% for July 2010 to June 2012, and the prescribed rate thereafter. Consolidated consideration for a flat and an undivided land interest need not separately allocate the land value; unit specifications require verification.

Proposed accused persons are not ordinarily entitled to a prior hearing before a writ court directs registration and investigation of a case. The statutory safeguard for public servants governing a Magistrate's complaint procedure does not automatically create that right in writ proceedings based on information from a statutory agency. A direction to investigate does not determine guilt, which remains for investigation and, if applicable, trial. Under the applicable High Court Writ Rules, review is available in criminal writ petitions on Code of Civil Procedure grounds; statutory bars on criminal courts reviewing judgments do not curtail writ jurisdiction. Recall may also be available in appropriate circumstances. The State may withdraw its own challenge despite a change of government, but should not change its position merely to serve political interests.

Money-laundering proceedings linked solely to a scheduled offence cannot survive the quashing of the predicate criminal case and its consequential proceedings. Proceeds of crime are property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The linked money-laundering proceedings and their consequential proceedings may be revived if the predicate proceedings are revived.

Pre-existing, plausible and non-illusory disputes over operational debt require rejection of an operational creditor's insolvency application. A late or absent reply to a demand notice does not prevent the debtor from relying on evidence of an earlier dispute. A holding response withholding admission of the demand may constitute notice of dispute even without specific details. The dispute must be supported by evidence, but its likely success need not be determined. Relevant communications may concern outstanding credit notes, detention and demurrage charges, reconciliation and the amount payable, provided they relate to the transactions underlying the claim.

Recall jurisdiction does not permit a rehearing on the merits or a fresh substantive declaration. A remand for reconsideration of a resolution plan does not itself set aside a provisional attachment or determine an enforcement authority's rights where those matters have not been adjudicated. The availability of a statutory appeal and the absence of a challenge to subsequent plan approval are relevant to the recall question. An approved resolution plan that remains unchallenged acquires finality.

The MSME revival framework requires a borrower seeking its benefit to substantiate MSME status and invoke the prescribed procedure. A belated claim without registration evidence or a prescribed application does not bar insolvency proceedings based on established debt and default exceeding the statutory threshold. Debt acknowledgments and settlement proposals admitting liability are relevant to assessing limitation for an insolvency application.

In a creditor's application to initiate insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, objections to the creditor's locus, maintainability and limitation are adjudicated under Section 100, after appointment of a resolution professional. The resolution professional examines the application and submits a recommendatory report; the adjudicating authority then determines whether to accept or reject the application. The procedure for a debtor's application under Section 94 is distinct.

An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lies against an order imposing punishment for contempt, not against dismissal of a contempt petition where no punishment has been imposed. Section 425 of the Companies Act attracts the Contempt of Courts Act, including its appellate provision. Contempt punishment requires deliberate disobedience to be established beyond doubt. In a dispute over company bank accounts, the transactions were attributed to post-dated cheques already held by the applicant; neither their issuance after the direction nor their encashment or withdrawal was established.

Related-party status alone does not justify rejecting a declared customs transaction value; evidence must show that the relationship influenced the import price. Customs valuation methods must be applied sequentially, starting with transaction value and comparable-goods methods before later methods are used. Prices of identical or similar goods imported from unrelated suppliers had been accepted. Where no influence on the prices of the imports in question was demonstrated, the declared values were accepted and the differential duty demand, confiscation and penalties were set aside.

Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires reasonable belief based on objective material available at seizure; unexplained possession and the purity of unmarked gold do not, by themselves, establish that belief. Without reasonable belief, the burden under Section 123 does not shift to the possessor, and the Department remains responsible for proving foreign origin and smuggling. Uncorroborated retracted statements cannot alone establish the smuggled character of unmarked gold, and reliance on statements requires compliance with Section 138B. Confiscation and penalties cannot be sustained without proof of smuggling.

Court-directed cash deposits made towards prospective customs duty before assessment are not payments of customs duty, so the statutory limitation for duty refunds does not apply. A bank guarantee securing the release of goods is also not a payment of customs duty. The depositor is entitled to a refund of the cash deposit with applicable interest from the date of deposit until refund.

Revenue bears the burden of displacing an importer's brown rice protein powder classification and cannot substitute assumptions for an unrebutted technical opinion identifying cereal proteins. HSN notes distinguish cereal proteins from textured protein substances; the stated 90% protein content for vegetable isolates is not a mandatory threshold for cereal proteins. The classification analysis favours tariff item 3504 0099, although tariff item 2106 1000 is also identified. Rule 3 favours a specific description, while Rule 4 applies only if earlier rules do not determine classification. Foreign customs rulings are not binding under Indian customs law. Extended limitation is unavailable where the classification is disclosed and no suppression or wilful misstatement occurs. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are unsustainable where the goods are unavailable and the dispute involves no incorrect description or valuation or bad faith.

Two-ton split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit fall under tariff item 8415 82 10. In tariff classification, a specific entry takes precedence over a generic entry when both describe the goods. The tariff distinguishes split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit from those without one, making that feature relevant to the applicable entry.

The extended limitation period under the Customs Act, 1962 requires circumstances such as collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Prior departmental knowledge of the nature and description of imported goods, followed by inaction within the normal limitation period, does not justify invoking the extended period in the absence of those circumstances. A wholly time-barred show cause notice raises a threshold jurisdictional question, and an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be cured on appeal.