Writ review extends to a private body performing a sector-wide regulatory function where its action materially affects an advocate's professional rights. A banking fraud-prevention Caution List may address fraud involving dishonest intent or deliberate wrongdoing, but cannot be used to list an advocate solely for negligent legal advice or deficient title verification. Banks may end empanelment for dissatisfaction, yet cannot impose sector-wide professional consequences or determine alleged professional incompetence. The Advocates Act assigns disciplinary assessment of advocates' negligence or misconduct exclusively to Bar Councils through a structured process. Adverse Caution List remarks were required to be removed, and the Bar Council of India was directed to review disciplinary accountability and continuing legal education.

Security deposit retention requires the employer to establish the contractor's default, resulting loss and contractual authority for any deduction after completion and expiry of the retention period. Alleged input tax credit loss from defective VAT invoices cannot support withholding without evidence of actual denial, causation and reliable quantification, particularly where invoices were accepted and processed. Contractual clauses permitting recovery of loss or compensation do not authorise unproved statutory adjustments. Although the contract excluded interest during valid retention, continued withholding after expiry of the performance guarantee period attracted interest at a commercially equitable rate rather than the higher rate claimed.

Repeated mechanical adjournment requests undermine timely justice delivery and may justify dismissal for non-prosecution. Under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, an appeal was dismissed after the appellant repeatedly sought adjournments beyond the permitted limit and did not pursue the matter. Repeated adjournments, whether sought personally or through counsel, are condemned because routine grants delay adjudication and impair the justice delivery system.

Repeated mechanical adjournment requests undermine the justice delivery system and have been condemned by the Supreme Court. Under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, an appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution where the appellant repeatedly seeks adjournments and exceeds the permitted limit. The rule was applied after the appellant's counsel sought adjournments personally or by letter without prosecuting the appeal, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution.

Cenvat credit is admissible for services, inputs and capital goods used to maintain and operate a fly ash pond, and for loading, unloading and transporting fly ash to a cement manufacturing unit. Fly ash is a raw material, and pond maintenance, extraction and inward movement activities have a direct nexus with manufacture. Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 covers services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and does not require eligible services to be performed within factory premises. The post-2011 omission of setting-up services does not exclude services independently covered by the principal definition.

Review of the Supreme Court's earlier dismissal of the special leave petitions was refused because no ground for review was established from the order or record. The Court permitted filing of the review petitions with additional grounds and condoned the filing delay, but declined the request for an open-court hearing. The review petitions were consequently dismissed. The underlying subject concerns refund of an unlawfully collected amount, constitutional invalidity of a levy or premium, unjust enrichment, restitution for payment made under a mistake of law, and the effect of higher courts leaving legal questions open.

Refund of accumulated unutilized Cenvat credit cannot be denied for lack of nexus between input services and exported output services where that nexus has already been settled in the assessee's favour for the relevant services. The earlier appellate basis for rejecting refund had been overturned, and the identical ground could not be used to deny refund for the later period. Consequential relief was available in accordance with law.

Turnover and transaction charges received by a stockbroker are includible in taxable value for service-tax purposes from 16 May 2008 where they constitute the provider's expense. Exclusion applies only when the service recipient is legally liable and the provider pays the amount solely as a pure agent; this condition was not met. Service tax was therefore payable on the charges. Extended limitation applies where the provider consciously fails to disclose liability despite clarification that gross amounts received by stockbrokers are taxable and denial of reimbursement treatment. Non-filing of service-tax returns and deliberate non-disclosure establish wilful suppression, defeating a claim of bona fide belief.

Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires a service-tax appeal to be filed within two months of receiving the adjudication order and permits condonation for sufficient cause only up to a further one month. The appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond this statutory outer limit, and the merits of the underlying dispute do not affect the limitation determination. An appeal filed more than seven years after receipt of the original order is therefore barred by limitation and cannot be entertained.

Labour contracts constitute taxable manpower recruitment or supply service where the agreement, read as a whole, appoints a labour contractor, requires labour billing and worker PF and ESIC compliance, and lacks independent output-quality standards or production obligations. Output-based payment does not by itself convert labour supply into job work or a manufacturing contract. An unretracted statement confirming labour-contractor status may be relied on where hearing opportunities were not used. Non-disclosure and non-payment of tax on known taxable labour-supply activity justify extended limitation and penalty. Form 16A receipts may support demand where the taxpayer does not prove they relate to non-taxable activity.

Composite subcontracts involving machinery, labour, fuel, lubricants, spares and other materials may constitute works contract services where property in goods passes in any form by accretion and is leviable as a deemed sale. Separate supply or billing of goods, actual VAT payment, or VAT exemption does not negate that character. Such subcontract services supplied for exempt Government dam and canal works fall within the exemption for sub-contracted works contracts. The extended limitation period cannot apply to a bona fide interpretative dispute without positive evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; consequential penalties cannot survive.

Composite construction and sale agreements for residential flats substantially undertaken before 1 July 2010 could not be subjected to service tax on composite consideration where no statutory mechanism existed to segregate goods and service components. Construction for individual purchasers' personal use was also described as falling outside the meaning of a residential complex under the applicable exclusion and departmental clarification. The extended limitation period was not available where the assessee was registered, filed returns, and the dispute involved an unsettled interpretational issue without deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement. Consequently, the service-tax demand, interest and penalties were stated to be unsustainable, subject to verification and adjustment of any late fee paid.

Attached assets covered by an approved resolution plan may be restored to successful resolution applicants under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act where they are bona fide claimants with a legitimate interest. The consensual restitution arrangement released the covered bank balances and residential units, and excluded any enforcement lien over assets forming part of the plan. Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code protected the corporate debtor after resolution, provided the successful applicants lacked links to former management and were not beneficiaries of proceeds of crime. The corporate debtor was removed from the prosecution complaint, while proceedings against former management and other liable persons continued. Questions of law remained open and the order was non-precedential.

Medical circumstances did not warrant interim bail because the medical board found the petitioner clinically stable, while advising continued management and angiography for further evaluation. The pending regular bail petition was already listed before the High Court, and an undertaking ensured appropriate treatment, including angiography if required. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition seeking bail on medical grounds without expressing any view on the merits of the regular bail petition.

Anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation was refused after the High Court found the petitioner ineligible for pre-arrest bail on both merits and medical grounds. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition seeking anticipatory bail and disposed of pending applications. The text identifies the twin conditions for bail as part of the subject matter but provides no further reasoning on their application.

Freezing of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was examined for compliance with the statutory requirements governing reasons to believe, retention, and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The material records that the mandatory requirements for freezing and retention under the relevant provisions were complied with before the Adjudicating Authority passed its confirmation order. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's orders and dismissed the special leave petitions, leaving the freezing orders and their confirmation undisturbed.

Company-liability provisions under FEMA attach responsibility to a person in charge of business conduct or whose neglect contributes to the company's contravention. Authority to execute export-related banking and transaction documents established responsibility for non-realisation and repatriation of export proceeds; neglect was attributable despite no proven consent, connivance or mens rea. Liability was therefore retained. The monetary penalty was limited to the amount already deposited, modifying the adjudication order while preserving the finding of contravention.

Liquidator appointment under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must give due effect to a unanimous Committee of Creditors recommendation, subject to the statutory grounds for replacement and verification of the proposed professional's subsisting Authorisation for Assignment. A general IBBI communication cannot be used to exclude a recommended insolvency professional where it falls outside Section 34(4) or does not factually apply. An unresolved eligibility objection cannot independently support appointment of another liquidator, but the Adjudicating Authority must verify regulatory authorisation before charge is assumed. Routine liquidation steps already taken may be preserved, with appropriate costs and fees for work genuinely performed.

Unadjudicated interest and damages under provident fund law that remain undetermined and non-final when the corporate insolvency resolution process begins are contingent, uncrystallized liabilities. Although provident fund dues may be excluded from the liquidation estate, a resolution plan need not include such uncrystallized interest and damages. The Committee of Creditors may make a lump-sum provision in its commercial wisdom, but omission does not itself breach the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Resolution applicants are entitled to certainty over assumed liabilities, and a Committee-approved plan may be rejected only on the limited statutory grounds governing plan approval.

An unadjudicated assertion in pleadings before the Supreme Court establishes only that the assertion was made; it neither declares law under Article 141 nor determines an entity's applicable statutory regime. That regime must be assessed under the governing framework based on the entity's objects, activities, operational area and relevant circumstances. Mandamus ordinarily requires a distinct prior demand for performance of a mandatory duty and a subsequent refusal or neglect within a reasonable time. Without evidence of such demand and refusal, and where jurisdiction over the entity is disputed, mandamus is not warranted.