An asset reconstruction company acquiring a financial asset may be substituted as complainant in a pending cheque-dishonour prosecution under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act; the provision is not confined to civil proceedings. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act restricts cognizance to complaints by the payee or holder in due course. Although the payee's identity is fixed when the cheque is drawn, an assignee acquiring the cheques and associated rights for consideration may be treated as a holder in due course without formal endorsement and continue the prosecution in its own name.

Reopening defence evidence to summon bank officials in cheque dishonour proceedings may be refused when their proposed testimony about account closure would not assist the defence on the material facts. A balance at closure that is grossly insufficient to honour the cheque is relevant to assessing whether evidence about closure would assist. Requests made at the judgment stage may invoke witness-summoning provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Cheque dishonour proceedings cannot be maintained for cheques taken against a tax and penalty assessment subsequently set aside where the cheques do not discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability. The assessment was set aside because the investigating and reporting officer also adjudicated the matter. The applicable VAT legislation permits cash, bank guarantees or bank drafts, but not cheques, as security for the release of goods. It separately provides for penalties and recovery, including recovery as arrears of land revenue.

Available input tax credit may be set off against VAT liability, with the remaining credit carried forward. An excessive transitional credit claim in TRAN-1 cannot be addressed by denying the VAT set-off. Rule 117 of the GST Rules provides for declared transitional credit to be entered in the electronic credit ledger, while Rule 121 provides for verification and action concerning wrongly availed credit under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act. The VAT department may inform the GST department of a potentially excessive transitional claim.

Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act limits revisional jurisdiction to four years; neither an audit objection nor a change of officer revives an expired period. Section 174 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act preserves applicable limitations and safeguards for pre-GST proceedings. Revisional notices and orders require independent formation of opinion and an opportunity to show cause, rather than unverified reliance on an audit objection. Binding judicial directions and the opportunity to raise limitation and jurisdiction objections must be respected. Under Rule 17, taxation on total consideration and denial of input tax credit apply where required accounts are not maintained; contract-wise ledgers, tax deduction returns and audited financial statements substantially answered the unverified allegations.

Silver mixed with palladium is classified as silver bullion for taxation under Notification No. 2698, rather than with inferior alloys.

CENVAT credit available on imported inputs is excluded from input cost when determining the excise assessable value of railway track maintenance machines. The credit benefit was transferred through an endorsement in a letter attached to the bill of entry, and certificates addressed the non-passing of duty incidence to the buyer. The manufacturer was entitled to a refund of excess excise duty.

Target-based incentives, discounts and customer-scheme reimbursements linked to principal-to-principal sales are not consideration for a declared service where no independent service is identified. Transfers of title by sale fall outside the definition of service, and trading in goods is on the negative list. Sales targets, best-efforts obligations and implementation of customer discounts do not themselves establish a separate service for the manufacturer. The extended limitation period cannot be invoked without evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression or intent to evade; mere non-payment of disputed tax does not establish suppression with intent to evade.

Coal transportation with incidental loading retains its character as a transportation service and is not taxable as cargo handling. Classification of a composite service depends on its substance and essential character, and the statutory definition of cargo handling excludes transportation of goods. Movement of coal between specified locations, with loading ancillary to that movement, is therefore treated as transportation. An earlier final classification decision governs a subsequent period involving substantially the same activity where the activity and governing law remain unchanged and no material distinction is identified.

Natural justice requires an appellant to be given an opportunity to explain the delay before an appeal filed within the statutory condonable period is rejected on limitation. Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 allows two months to file an appeal and a further month on sufficient cause. Relevant holidays are taken into account when computing the condonable period: where it expires on a Sunday, filing on the following working day falls within that period. Condonation depends on sufficient cause, separate from the underlying service tax liability.

Business Auxiliary Service includes the promotion or marketing of a client's goods or services. A service is an activity carried out by one person for another for consideration. Under Section 67, taxable services are valued by reference to the gross amount charged for the service. The extended period for demand under Section 73(1) requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a provisional attachment order is subject to adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority and cannot be directly appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. Appellate jurisdiction is limited to orders for which the statute provides an appeal. A direction to treat a writ petition as an appeal requires consideration in accordance with law and does not permit the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction beyond the statutory framework.

Insolvency appeals must be filed within 30 days of pronouncement, with a further maximum of 15 days available on sufficient cause. Lack of knowledge of the order or failure to intimate claimants of the payment formula cannot extend that limit. Provident fund dues are excluded from the liquidation estate and protected from the ordinary distribution waterfall. Interest and damages not determined before insolvency may be contingent liabilities for which the committee of creditors may decide whether to provide. Claimants may challenge claim verification during the insolvency process, while claims omitted from an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

Liquidation regulations contemplate claims as at the liquidation commencement date, while the insolvency code recognises disputed or unquantified rights to payment as claims. Permission to assess tax during liquidation does not restart the deadline for submitting a claim to the liquidator. A timely challenge to rejection is distinct from timely submission of the underlying claim. An explanation limited to the period after assessment does not account for earlier delay, and reopening the stakeholder list may disrupt time-bound liquidation and distribution. If a claim first arises after liquidation commences, it falls outside the claims contemplated by the regulations.

Complainant participation in an insolvency professional's disciplinary appeal is not mandatory. A complainant should not be impleaded against their wishes merely because of subsequently discovered facts, unless their presence is required for just disposal. Replacement of an authorised representative operates prospectively and does not invalidate acts validly performed during the predecessor's tenure. Where a complaint has been found maintainable and disciplinary proceedings have culminated in an order, subsequent material cannot be used to reopen the complainant's standing. The disciplinary order's correctness is assessed on the material before the disciplinary committee.

Condonation of delay in seeking recall of an ex parte order may be refused where the explanation lacks credible support and does not establish reasonable diligence. Article 122 of the Limitation Act prescribes a 30-day period from dismissal rather than knowledge. An explanation attributing delay to former counsel requires credible supporting material; the absence of a no-objection from counsel, as contemplated by Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may also be relevant. The time-bound nature of insolvency proceedings is relevant to condonation.

Separate corporate personalities mean that a parent company is not liable for its subsidiary's operational debt merely because of their corporate relationship. A unilateral letter does not itself novate the underlying contract. Assessment of an alleged debt transfer may involve contractual exclusions of pre-closing liabilities, contracts not novated by closing, and subsequent letters, part-payments and cheques. Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot substitute for recovery or adjudication of a disputed commercial claim.

Prima facie involvement in alleged corporate fraud may justify interim property restraints even without proof that company assets were received personally. Potential personal liability under section 35 of the Companies Act, 2013 was considered despite the absence of proof that company assets personally benefited the applicant. The money-laundering proceedings had not reached finality, and unrestricted property dealings could prejudice creditor recovery. The property restraints remain in force, but the bank account may be operated subject to quarterly reporting of withdrawals and expenditure. The liquidator's principal application remains pending.

Subsequent board resolutions concerning a company's authorization or ratification of acts connected with a suit may be produced without prejudging whether the suit was validly instituted. Authority to institute a suit is distinct from authority to sign and verify pleadings. An officer's signing of pleadings may be expressly or impliedly ratified, and curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights. The resolution's admissibility and effect on authorization and maintainability remain for determination at trial, based on the evidence and circumstances.

Natural justice in import valuation requires meaningful access to relevant import records and an opportunity to cross-examine material departmental witnesses. Cross-examination cannot be denied merely on the assumption that it would serve no purpose in light of the importer's statements. Before fresh adjudication, the importer must receive a copy of the original import file and an opportunity to cross-examine the department's chartered engineer. Relevant CBIC circulars must be considered during fresh adjudication; the valuation merits remain undecided.