Marketed information technology software recorded on media is goods under Article 366(12) of the Constitution, and its sale is a deemed sale excluded from the definition of service under the Finance Act, 1994. Failure to establish conditions concerning valuation, duties or invoice declarations under Notification No. 11/2016-ST does not convert an otherwise sale-of-goods transaction into a taxable service. Accordingly, service tax, consequential interest and penalty relating to packaged software sales were set aside. Late fees for failure to file service tax returns within the prescribed period after registration remained enforceable under the applicable return-filing provisions.

Road-construction works performed for the Public Works Department for general public utility fall within the exemption for such works under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Form 26AS receipts alone do not establish service-tax liability: the taxing authority must independently verify the nature of the underlying activity, consider available exemptions and supporting records, and prove that the receipts constitute taxable consideration. A demand based solely on third-party Form 26AS data, without such enquiry, is unsustainable; related interest and penalties also cannot stand.

Service-tax adjudication of composite works contracts requires determination of the taxable service component under Rule 2A, excluding the value of property transferred in goods or applying prescribed valuation percentages where applicable. The assessment must also determine the assessee's status where reverse-charge liability depends on whether it is a partnership firm or company, and decide notification eligibility through reasoned findings. Availability of a statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge concerns the foundational validity of assessment, including valuation provisions, notification-based liability and constitutional limits on taxing goods transfers. The adjudication requires fresh, reasoned determination after hearing the assessee.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is confined to exceptional cases of patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or manifest lack of jurisdiction where statutory adjudication and appellate remedies are available. A pre-registered predicate case is not indispensable for attachment under the Act where the order refers to FIRs alleging cheating, a scheduled offence, and information has been transmitted to the jurisdictional police. Objections to overseas advertisements and the quantification of proceeds of crime involve disputed facts and must be examined through the statutory process.

Closure reports filed by an investigating agency must be finally considered and decided by the Trial Court before which they are pending, rather than by the High Court. A final order of a Special Court, whether resulting in conviction, acquittal or complete discharge, does not by itself obstruct further investigation or trial, and statutory remedies remain available to the parties. The pending closure report is to be decided within two months, while proceedings concerning concluded Special Court matters remain subject to the earlier directions without further interference.

Restoration of corporate debtor assets improperly dealt with during the CIRP moratorium may be directed under Sections 14 and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code without establishing fraudulent or wrongful trading under Section 66. Sections 14 and 17 protect the insolvency estate by prohibiting asset dealings and placing management with the resolution professional, while Section 60(5), read with Rule 11, supports consequential restoration orders. The stated basis includes sale of mortgaged property during moratorium despite refusal of permission and unexplained withdrawals. Action under Section 74 is described as infructuous following its omission with effect from 26 May 2026.

Related-party import values derived through undisclosed funding discounts were rejected, requiring redetermination under deductive-value principles through the residual method where comparable unrelated imports were unavailable. Only import-time discounts were deductible; retrospective or contingent discounts and embedded warranty costs were excluded, while customs duty, brokerage and fees were deductible without separately adding freight and insurance to a fully delivered price. SRFR products could receive corresponding regular-product discounts plus the SRFR discount, and CLCP could not replace statutory MRP for assessment. SAD exemption was unavailable, and extended limitation applied for non-disclosure; however, interest and penalties were confined to the BCD component. Customs-duty deduction was upheld subject to verification of the deducted quantum.

For customs valuation, the price actually paid by the subsequent importer under its direct contract with the overseas supplier is the transaction value where the parties are unrelated and price is the sole consideration. The original importer neither honoured the letter of credit nor took delivery, so its contract did not result in a completed sale or payment. As the subsequent importer paid the renegotiated price, obtained title and clearance, and no additional consideration or basis to reject the declared value existed, the declared price is to be accepted as the assessable value. The transaction-value regime applicable to the import could not be displaced by the earlier deemed-value approach.

Social Welfare Surcharge is not payable on imports made against MEIS or SEIS duty credit scrips where Basic Customs Duty is fully exempt under the applicable customs exemption notifications. As the surcharge is calculated as a percentage of aggregate customs duties payable, it is nil where the aggregate customs duty is nil due to exemption. It cannot be computed on a notional Basic Customs Duty. This position applies to exemptions under Notifications No. 24/2015-Customs and 25/2015-Customs, with consequential refund relief available for surcharge paid.

Extra Duty Deposit collected in related-party imports pending final assessment or valuation verification is a security, not a statutory customs duty levy. It may be appropriated only where final assessment establishes an additional duty liability. If the declared transaction value is accepted and no further duty is payable, the basis for retaining the deposit ends. The limitation applicable to refunds of customs duty does not govern return of the deposit, so its refund after final assessment is not time-barred.

Classification and duty consequences of imported sorbitol under the Advance Authorisation Scheme require fresh adjudication where import documents reflected a different tariff heading due to an admitted supplier error. Sorbitol was claimed under Chapter 2905 for use in providing moisture to paste, while certain documents showed Heading 382460. The claimed fulfilment of export obligation and cited decisions concerning departmental challenge to goods imported under the scheme must be considered. The classification and consequential duty dispute is remitted for reconsideration after considering the cited decisions and further submissions.

SAFTA preferential-duty entitlement remains available where an undisputed, valid Certificate of Origin confirms that goods were wholly produced or obtained in the exporting State and the prescribed origin-verification procedure has not been followed. A purported relinquishment of that claim, obtained amid customs detention, demurrage and urgent clearance requirements, does not constitute voluntary relinquishment or prevent challenge to reassessment. Denial of the preference consequently cannot support differential duty or interest. Where examination reveals no discrepancy in quality, classification or valuation, goods are not seized, and no misdeclaration or fraud is established, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty lack a sustainable basis.

Truthful baggage declaration under Section 77 is a condition for detention and later return or re-export under the special passenger-baggage regime in Section 80. Section 125 provides a general discretionary redemption power for confiscated prohibited goods on payment of fine, but does not create an independent right to re-export or override the declaration and detention requirements. Permitting re-export of undeclared gold under Section 125 would defeat the safeguards in Sections 77 and 80. Where the passenger crossed the Green Channel without declaring the gold or seeking detention, re-export could not be granted; revisional correction of an erroneous re-export direction was within the revisional power.

Confirmation of attachment of bank funds as alleged benami property could not rest on an incomplete investigation. The material did not establish that the appellant supplied demonetised currency to the alleged benamidar companies, while their actual control, incorporation, shareholding, bank operations, management and third-party dealings remained unverified. The appellant's bullion-sale explanation also required verification because stock registers, VAT returns and supporting sale documentation were not produced. The attachment confirmation was therefore unsustainable on the existing record, and the matter was remanded for comprehensive re-investigation.

Benami ownership was established for the identified shares through cumulative circumstantial evidence: the apparent holder lacked financial and operational capacity, purchase funds came through broker-connected entities, repayments were funded by promoter-group entities, and no independent commercial source was substantiated. The individual was therefore treated as beneficial owner and the company as benamidar, sustaining attachment of those shares. Freezing of additional shares was invalid because the provisional attachment, notice and impugned order did not cover them or identify them as benami property; their release to the rightful owner was directed. Attachment cannot extend beyond property specifically covered by statutory proceedings.

Reassessment initiated beyond three years from the end of assessment year 2016-17 required sanction under section 151(ii) from the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. Approval for the section 148A(d) order and section 148 notice was granted by the Principal Commissioner, who was not the prescribed authority. The defective sanction invalidated the reassessment initiation; the reassessment proceedings were therefore vitiated and quashed in favour of the assessee.

A reassessment notice under Section 148 for assessment year 2015-16, issued after 1 April 2021, was treated as invalid where it could not be completed within the period prescribed by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Revenue had conceded that such notices must be dropped, and the notice issued on 26 July 2023 fell within that concession. Decisions applying the concession to identical facts were considered applicable, with no contrary authority identified. The notice was quashed.

Registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G require verification of the genuineness of an applicant's activities. A prior remand for fresh examination does not require grant solely on self-attested material already filed. Failure to provide requested records concerning educational activities, approvals, accounts, staff payments, fees and donations may justify inability to verify genuineness. Where non-compliance resulted from the applicant's mistaken belief that no further documents were required after remand, the applications may be restored for fresh consideration with a further opportunity to submit relevant self-attested or self-certified documents.

Interest earned on compulsory statutory deposits with co-operative banks is attributable to a co-operative society's business of providing credit facilities to its members. Where deposits are mandated by the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, the interest constitutes business income eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Treating such interest as income from other sources is inconsistent with the principles applicable to compulsory statutory investments.

Where rectification establishes that no tax demand survives, the Tribunal may use its inherent appellate powers to direct refund of tax recovered while the rectification application was pending. The rectification granted the claimed tax deducted at source credit and calculated a refund after adjusting the recovered amount; a further refund remained due even without that adjustment, showing that the original demand had been extinguished and the recovery amounted to duplicate collection. Such relief may be necessary in exceptional circumstances to prevent arbitrary recovery from frustrating the statutory appellate process.