Section 39 permits recovery of a company's tax dues from a director only after reasoned consideration of the company's available assets, the director's position when the tax became due, and the statutory conditions for personal recovery. Before proceeding against personal assets, the director's defence that non-recovery from the company was not caused by negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty must be examined. The burden of proving that absence of fault rests on the director, rather than on the Revenue. Personal recovery may proceed only after this statutory assessment and determination.

Audio cassettes classified as electronic goods under G.O.Ms.No.252 remained eligible for the concessional sales tax rate despite the later introduction of Entry 10 in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. A concession granted by statutory notification operates independently and continues unless expressly withdrawn, superseded, or rescinded. As the Government Order remained in force during the relevant assessment year, its technical classification bound the taxing authorities, and Entry 10 did not impliedly extinguish the concession.

Food supplements purchased and sold unchanged cannot be reclassified as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines for concessional taxation without proof of therapeutic character and compliance with drug-sale regulatory requirements. The Common Parlance Test and Authoritative Test do not establish medicinal status merely because a manufacturer holds a drug licence or a lower tax rate is claimed. Products must be intended and shown to diagnose, treat, mitigate or prevent disease, and be marketed lawfully as drugs. Absent those conditions, they remain residuary goods taxable at the applicable higher rate. Regulatory exemptions relating to Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs do not remove licensing requirements for their manufacture or sale. Costs may be awarded where appellate powers contain no prohibition and litigation is vexatious.

Input tax credit for tax paid on purchasing Duty Entitlement Passbook licences is unavailable where the licences do not independently meet the statutory conditions for credit. Although a DEPB licence constitutes goods, credit is confined to purchases of taxable goods specified in the First Schedule and used for qualifying purposes. DEPB licences are distinct from the imported plastic granules acquired through their use and are not themselves specified in the First Schedule. The governing principle is that classification as goods under the general definition does not by itself establish input tax credit entitlement; the purchase must separately satisfy the specific statutory requirements for taxable goods and qualifying transactions.

CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices is barred under Rule 9(1)(bb) where the supplier's additional service tax becomes recoverable due to fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or other conduct intended to evade tax. Departmental detection of the supplier's earlier non-payment, together with only partial immunity and reduced penalty before the Settlement Commission, supported application of that exclusion; denial of credit with interest was therefore sustained. Penalty for wrongful credit availment requires culpable omission or conduct by the recipient. As the invoices contained the prescribed duty-payment and taxable-value particulars and no omission was attributable to the recipient, penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC was not imposable.

Cenvat credit on services used for fabrication, erection of pipelines, welding, cutting and flange fixing to establish a manufacturing facility remains available after 1 April 2011 where the services have a direct nexus with manufacture and are not specifically excluded as construction of a building or civil structure. The removal of an express reference to factory set-up from the inclusive part of the input-service definition does not displace coverage under its main limb. Disclosure of total credit in monthly returns is sufficient where no law requires service-wise disclosure; failure to provide non-mandated details cannot establish suppression or wilful misstatement, and does not support extended limitation or penalty.

Reimbursement by a buyer of an amount reversed under Rule 6(3)(a)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules for exempt clearances does not constitute an amount collected as representing excise duty merely because it appears in an invoice's excise-duty column. Exempt goods carry no excise-duty liability, and statutory records and ER-1 returns showing the prescribed reversal support the payment's character as Cenvat-related reimbursement. Where the parties' agreement identifies the payment as reimbursement, invoice nomenclature cannot alter its legal nature. Section 11D does not apply because no amount was collected by representing it as excise duty.

Sale of seller-developed plots constitutes a transfer of immovable property, not taxable Site Formation and Development Service, where development is undertaken before sale and no service is rendered to purchasers. Advances received under a flat-sale scheme did not alter this character where flats were not sold and the advances were refunded or adjusted against plot sales. Extended limitation requires evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, clandestine activity, or deliberate intent to evade tax; mere non-payment, delayed filing, or an interpretative difference is insufficient. Accordingly, the demand was time-barred and the related interest and penalties were set aside.

Foreign-bank charges deducted from export proceeds do not constitute consideration for services received by an Indian exporter where the foreign bank provides letter-of-credit and remittance services to its overseas buyer-client. The exporter has no direct contractual or service-recipient relationship with the foreign bank and receives relevant banking services from its Indian banker when export documents are negotiated. As the foreign service provider and its recipient are outside the taxable territory, foreign-currency remittance and deductions retained by the foreign bank do not establish a taxable service received in India. Accordingly, the exporter is not liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.

CENVAT credit is admissible where running account bills, payment orders and service-tax challans substantiate receipt of input services and payment of service tax. Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules require documents containing prescribed particulars, while the proviso to Rule 9(2) permits credit despite certain omissions if essential tax, service, value, registration and address details are available and service receipt is established. Contractor-prepared running account bills verified against measurement books, supported by payment records, met this standard. Reverse-charge service-tax challans were valid credit documents. Credit cannot be denied merely for a technical objection to document nomenclature or form; consequential demand, interest and penalty do not survive.

Licensing pre-existing technical know-how, documentation and trademarks, without a client-specific engineering advisory engagement, is characterised as a licence to use intangible intellectual property rather than Consulting Engineer Service. Engineering subject matter alone does not convert the arrangement into consultancy, particularly where the provider is not a professionally qualified engineer or engineering firm under the applicable definition. Recipient-side service-tax liability for foreign services required express statutory authority and could not be imposed through delegated legislation before Section 66A took effect. Rules concerning recipient payment did not apply absent invocation in the notice or provider authorisation to pay tax.

Money-laundering liability requires property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Where allegations arise solely from transactions with an entity finally discharged in both scheduled-offence and PMLA proceedings on the basis that the funds were not proceeds of crime, the foundational element under Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3 is absent. PMLA proceedings against the petitioners, including orders issuing process and refusing discharge, were therefore quashed.

Cognizance of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is governed by criminal procedure provisions where they are not inconsistent with that Act. For complaints governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the proviso to its cognizance provision requires the proposed accused to receive an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken. Omission of that hearing renders the cognizance proceeding illegal and vitiated, rather than constituting a curable irregularity dependent on proof of prejudice. Fresh consideration of cognizance must therefore follow a hearing before the Special Court.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was declined because the twin conditions under Section 45 were not satisfied. The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition while granting liberty to seek regular bail after charges are framed; any such application must be considered by the trial court in accordance with law.

A statutory maximum penalty under the foreign-exchange regime does not require imposition at the maximum level or justify enhancement merely because the penalty is below that ceiling. The adjudicating authority must exercise discretion judicially on the facts and evidence. Where the relevant material has been assessed and no improper exercise of discretion or disproportionately low penalty is established, enhancement is unwarranted. The analysis supports maintaining the penalty imposed on the company director.

A personal guarantor challenged admission of a personal insolvency resolution process initiated on a financial creditor's application. Following a one-time settlement, the borrower made full and final payment and the bank issued a settlement certificate and agreed to withdraw the process. The appellate tribunal therefore allowed the appeal by consent, set aside the order admitting the personal insolvency process, and closed pending interlocutory applications. The process against the personal guarantor did not continue because no amount remained outstanding under the settlement.

Impleadment in an oppression and mismanagement petition depends on whether a proposed party is necessary for effective adjudication. Entities alleged to have benefited from diversion of company funds or business were independent, not subsidiaries, and had not been shown to have colluded with the existing respondent. Their alleged beneficiary status alone did not establish that their presence was necessary, particularly as pleadings were complete and the alleged misconduct against the existing respondent remained to be proved. Their impleadment was therefore deferred at this stage, while leaving open the possibility of adding them at final hearing if required for effective adjudication.

Expiry of a letter of credit does not terminate an independently subsisting sale contract where purchase orders and subsequent performance establish continuing contractual obligations. Delivery to a carrier at the place of dispatch may constitute delivery to the buyer under the Sale of Goods Act, supporting territorial jurisdiction where the contract was accepted, goods dispatched, and payment receivable. An unregistered partnership firm cannot enforce contractual rights through a counterclaim because the statutory bar extends to set-off and related proceedings. Proven airfreight, demurrage, goods-related, and clearing expenses may be reimbursed and set off against the contractual amount, while liability of a bank or clearing agent requires an independent evidentiary basis.

Allegations of forgery, fabrication of loan-security documents, falsification of accounts and use of fabricated records in insolvency proceedings require investigation where document authenticity, alterations and signatures are disputed. At the FIR-quashing stage, allegations must be accepted at face value; the court cannot test their truthfulness, reliability or evidentiary value or conduct a mini trial. Pendency of insolvency proceedings and claimed protection under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code do not bar investigation into alleged criminal acts by individuals. The doctrine of indoor management does not apply to allegations involving forgery, irregularity and collusion. The FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and was not quashed.

Rejection of a warehousing-period extension requires adjudicatory consideration supported by disclosed reasons and compliance with natural justice. Communications refusing extension without findings or justification, and without allowing the assessee to respond or receive a personal hearing, were described as prima facie unsustainable. COVID-related limitation directions and relevant warehousing-extension decisions must also be considered. The extension request must therefore be determined afresh through a reasoned adjudication after providing reasons, an opportunity to file a reply and a personal hearing.