ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 establishes requirements for an IT Service Management System that enables organisations to plan, deliver, manage, monitor and continually improve IT-enabled services. It requires defined service-management processes, customer focus, risk-based thinking and Plan-Do-Check-Act improvement. Core controls cover organisational context, leadership, planning, service portfolios, service levels, incidents, problems, changes, configuration, supplier relationships, performance evaluation and continual improvement. Implementation includes gap analysis, scope definition, process development, operational controls, training, internal audit, management review and correction of nonconformities.

Pre-institution mediation requirements under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act operate independently from the conditions for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Proof that defendants intend to remove themselves or their assets from the court's jurisdiction concerns the attachment application and cannot determine whether exemption from mediation should be granted. Where parties have already undergone mediation without resolving the dispute, no mediation-related barrier remains to considering attachment before judgment. The Commercial Court may decide the attachment application expeditiously and number the commercial suit if otherwise in order.

Vicarious criminal liability for cheque-dishonour offences by a company requires specific allegations that the former director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence occurred, or that it resulted from that person's consent, connivance or neglect. Directorship alone and general assertions do not satisfy this requirement. Where statutory corporate records establish resignation before the cheques were issued and dishonoured, and the former director neither signed the cheques nor had a pleaded role in the alleged offence, continuation of proceedings is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of process. Summoning orders and complaints against that former director are liable to be quashed.

Competent authority ratification can retrospectively validate an initially unauthorised but otherwise lawful acceptance of resignation. Where the governing statute makes resignation effective upon acceptance by the appointing authority, communication of acceptance and expiry of the notice period are not conditions of legal effectiveness; the notice period governs actual relieving. Withdrawal before relieving remains subject to the competent authority's reasoned discretion under the applicable framework. An employee who sought waiver of notice, accepted separation-related benefits and acted upon the completed separation cannot later rely on a technical defect in acceptance. A reasoned refusal based on the employee's stated intention to leave for another institution is not open to substitution through judicial review absent unlawfulness, mala fides or perversity.

Rectification under section 72 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is confined to correcting a mistake of fact apparent from the record. It cannot be used to obtain merits adjudication of additional issues allegedly left undecided or to restore a revision application already finally disposed of. Recalling the final revision order exceeded the limited rectification jurisdiction, making the restoration and consequential rectification orders impermissible. Any challenge to the original final order must be pursued through appropriate independent proceedings.

VAT and sales tax proceedings concerned a challenge to a High Court order arising from a writ petition. The dispute reached the Supreme Court through a civil appeal by a company and another party against the State and other respondents. The available material identifies the subject matter as indirect tax litigation under the CST, VAT and sales tax framework, without setting out the underlying tax issue, statutory interpretation, factual controversy, or substantive legal principle involved.

Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, before 31 March 2008 covered services used directly or indirectly for clearance of final products from the place of removal. Where the factory was the place of removal, service tax paid on outward freight from the factory qualified for CENVAT credit under the pre-amendment definition of input service. Extended limitation could not apply where credit particulars were disclosed in ER-1 returns and no suppression or misstatement was established. A dispute involving interpretation of the credit rules, without non-disclosure, did not support a time-barred demand.

Cenvat credit on telephone services remains available where invoices are issued in the head office's name, despite the head office not being registered as an Input Service Distributor, if the assessee received and used the services. Non-registration is treated as a procedural irregularity during the relevant period where proportionate credit distribution was not required and the lapse caused neither undue benefit nor revenue loss. Credit cannot be denied solely because the invoices name an unregistered head office.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, payment of the differential duty determined in Form SVLDRS-3 was established through the relevant declarations and bank statement and remained undisputed. Where issuance of a discharge certificate requires procedural verification despite such payment, the declaration requires manual examination and processing. The Commissioner must manually examine and process the request for issuance of the discharge certificate within four weeks.

Cenvat credit is admissible for structural steel items, welding electrodes and oxygen demonstrably used within the factory to manufacture, repair or maintain capital goods and machinery, rather than to construct sheds, buildings, foundations or support structures. Chartered Engineer certificates substantiating this end-use support eligibility, and the exclusion for construction-related structural materials does not apply. Credit recorded in RG23A records and disclosed through ER-1 returns, amid divergent views on eligibility, reflects a bona fide belief and does not establish suppression. The extended limitation period is therefore unavailable, rendering the demand, consequential interest and penalty unsustainable.

Excise valuation of body-built vehicles includes the 10% addition embedded in the chassis value determined under Rule 8, because that amount forms part of the intermediate chassis cost used in the completed vehicle. The exclusion for anticipated post-manufacture sale profit and post-clearance expenses does not permit exclusion of this embedded addition. Extended limitation for duty recovery requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, wilful suppression, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Where the Department already knows the material valuation facts, an assessee's omission does not constitute wilful suppression; recovery beyond the normal limitation period is therefore barred.

Pre-deposit requirements did not apply to an appeal filed before the mandatory 7.5% regime took effect. Where proceedings returned for a second round after remand and the required deposit had already been made in the original appellate proceedings, the first appellate authority should decide the appeal on merits rather than reconsider pre-deposit. Rejection solely for alleged non-compliance with pre-deposit was unsustainable, requiring merits adjudication without re-examination of the deposit requirement.

Small-service-provider exemption for FY 2013-2014 applied because aggregate taxable-service value in the preceding financial year did not exceed the prescribed threshold. Nil-payment Form 26AS for FY 2012-2013 reasonably established nil preceding-year taxable-service turnover, particularly as receipts were determined using Form 26AS. As taxable-service value in FY 2013-2014 was below the applicable threshold, the service-tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Service-tax demands for Works Contract Service and Goods Transport Agency service require a reasoned reconciliation of taxable value, statutory returns, books of account, payment challans and CENVAT credit records; discrepancies between balance-sheet figures and ST-3 returns alone do not establish short-payment. Composite contracts involving transfer of property in goods and services require assessment under Works Contract Service after its introduction. Reverse-charge liability for GTA service does not dispense with verification of payments, appropriations, adjustments and recoverable balance. Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; audit discrepancies alone are insufficient. Failure to meet these requirements renders the demand, consequential interest and penalties unsustainable.

Composite catering arrangements qualify for the relevant service-tax exemption when assessed by their overall commercial character; beverages and refreshments do not by themselves negate a substantial and satisfying meal. Composite contracts may contain separate sale and service elements, so service tax cannot extend to the value of food and beverages transferred as goods where VAT has been paid without identifying the taxable service component. Extended limitation is unavailable where registered taxpayers disclosed agreements, invoices, returns and VAT records, and the dispute concerns notification interpretation without suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade. Consequently, no service-tax liability, interest or penalties survive.

Consultancy, guidance and coordination support supplied directly to an overseas client on the supplier's own account do not constitute intermediary services merely because they assist the client's dealings with Indian Railways. Intermediary status requires arranging or facilitating a distinct principal supply between two other parties, involving at least three parties. Where the consultant neither acts as a broker or go-between nor arranges such supply, the general place-of-provision rule applies based on the recipient's location. The consultancy services were therefore provided outside the taxable territory and were not liable to service tax.

Works-contract classification under the Finance Act, 1994 requires proof that the service provider transferred property in goods while executing the relevant contract. A separately executed erection, commissioning and installation contract remained a service-only contract because no such transfer was established; materials were supplied free by the recipient, and VAT paid under a separate supply contract did not prove transfer under the service contract. Composition-scheme abatement was therefore unavailable on the service-contract consideration. Materials supplied free of cost by the recipient were not transferred by the service provider and were excluded from taxable value.

Composite construction contracts involving transfer of property in goods cannot be taxed as construction services for the period before 1 July 2012. Under the post-2012 negative-list regime, developer construction for buyers before a valid completion certificate is taxable as works contract service. An unreliable completion certificate does not exclude the activity from tax. Extended limitation and penalties may apply where service tax is collected without registration or payment, taxable collections are omitted, and returns are filed late, establishing deliberate suppression and intent to evade tax.

A discharge certificate issued under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme conclusively settles the declared matter and period under the Finance Act, 2019. Following acceptance of the declaration and payment of the determined amount, further duty, interest or penalty liability for the covered dispute is barred, and Revenue proceedings challenging that settlement do not survive. Extended limitation cannot be invoked where earlier show-cause notices demonstrate departmental knowledge of the assessee's accounting method, insurance-charge collection and service-tax position. Such prior knowledge negates suppression of facts, restricting any demand to the normal limitation period.

Returned advances received towards sale of plots were not consideration for a taxable service because they related to sale of immovable property and were refunded when the proposed construction was not viable. Such receipts fall outside the definition of service under the Finance Act, 1994, so service tax was not payable on them. Where service tax and interest on construction-related receipts were paid before issuance of the show-cause notice, no further notice was required to demand the paid amount, and penalty was not sustainable. The levy on refunded plot-sale advances and the penalty were annulled, while the pre-notice tax and interest payment remained accepted.