Substantive compliance with exemption conditions prevails over delayed filing of EXP-3 returns and alleged documentary deficiencies where returns were filed, supporting documents were available, and a composite declaration certificate covered the shipping bills. Procedural delay alone does not defeat exemption entitlement. Service tax on commission connected with disputed shipping bills requires evidence that the commission was actually paid; without that evidentiary basis, the tax demand, consequential interest, and penalties cannot be sustained.

Qualifying construction services supplied by a subcontractor through a main contractor for a Government reservoir dam and irrigation project are exempt from service tax where the underlying project falls within the applicable exemption. Taxable receipts must receive cum-tax valuation, and any liability falling on the service recipient under applicable reverse-charge provisions must be excluded from the provider's demand after verification. Exempt turnover must therefore be removed and the remaining liability, including penalty, recalculated proportionately. However, a challenge based on higher receipts reflected in profit and loss accounts and Form 26AS fails where no specific error in the discrepancy determination is identified.

Conditional pre-deposit requirements validly imposed under the unamended appellate regime remained enforceable because a statutory appeal depended on compliance with the ordered deposit. Failure to comply, without securing appropriate relief, permitted rejection of the appeal where the adjournment request had been considered and no natural justice breach, procedural illegality, or perversity arose. The later mandatory pre-deposit regime operated prospectively and did not alter rights and obligations governed by the earlier law. Consequently, a later deposit under the amended regime could not retrospectively cure default under the prior conditional pre-deposit order or revive the dismissed appeal.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, property traceable to proceeds of scheduled offences remains liable to attachment despite layering or acquisition in another person's name. Active and knowing participation in fraudulent schemes, receipt of funds from group entities, and use of those funds to acquire assets supported treatment of the assets as proceeds of crime. Claimed commission income did not displace that evidence. Assets held in a spouse's name were funded by tainted proceeds, while an asserted loan did not explain the remaining consideration or repayment. Continued enjoyment of rental income established beneficial control over nominally transferred property and supported concealment findings. Provisional attachment was therefore sustained.

Bail in alleged money-laundering proceedings was denied because the petitioner's alleged role as the principal managerial person was materially more serious than that of co-accused who obtained bail. The scale of alleged proceeds of crime, statements from numerous victims, a co-accused's abscondence, and seizure of a mobile phone from the petitioner in custody supported a risk of misuse of liberty. Prolonged incarceration and asserted health grounds did not displace these considerations, particularly as the medical material was considered unreliable. The statutory twin conditions for bail were not satisfied.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was addressed in relation to the scope of section 5(1), the definitions of attachment and proceeds of crime, and the continuing nature of money laundering. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition and declined to interfere with the High Court's order.

Final personal insolvency admission and closure orders cannot be collaterally challenged through an appeal against a consequential bankruptcy order when the available objections were not raised earlier. Service of the closure application and bankruptcy petition at the debtor's admitted email address, combined with the absence of a statutory requirement for prior notice before a bankruptcy order following closure, defeated the natural justice challenge. Limitation and invocation of the personal guarantee had been determined in the unchallenged admission order; the application was also filed within three years of the demand invoking the guarantee. Separate proceedings against a co-guarantor did not affect the binding orders against the appellant.

A continuing personal guarantee remained operative until outstanding dues were paid and extended to renewed credit facilities because the guarantor signed the renewal at the existing level. The principal cap did not exclude contractual interest: liability covered the specified principal amount together with interest at the stipulated rate or any rate notified by the bank from the date of demand. Consequently, the personal guarantor insolvency application was admitted without appellate interference. The governing principle is that a continuing guarantee, where the guarantor assents to renewal, covers renewed facilities and the agreed interest component in addition to the principal limit.

GST treatment of services supplied by an advocate acting as an Insolvency Professional depends on the capacity and nature of the service, not the supplier's advocate qualification or enrolment. Forward charge is the default under the CGST Act, while reverse charge applies only to notified legal services supplied by advocates. Insolvency and receivership services fall under the specific service classification 998241, distinct from legal services under 99821; the specific classification governs. Such services are therefore subject to forward charge, requiring GST registration and GST-compliant invoicing. Reverse charge remains limited to services rendered in the capacity of an advocate as legal services.

Termination of a disclosed share purchase agreement constitutes material information requiring clear and conspicuous disclosure under Regulation 30. Mentioning the termination only in small print within a note to unaudited financial results, while omitting it from the principal board-meeting disclosure, does not adequately inform investors. Proposed ventures and their termination may materially affect investors' assessment of a listed entity's prospects and share price. The disclosure requirement therefore was not met, and complaints concerning the inadequate communication required evaluation in the proper perspective.

Bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients qualifying as drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 fall within the description-based IGST rate entry for drugs and medicines, regardless of classification under Chapters 28 or 29. Import for manufacture, testing, clinical trials, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies does not change their character as drugs. The phrase "any Chapter" extends the entry to APIs classified outside Chapter 30, and the specific drugs entry prevails over general chapter-based entries for inorganic and organic chemicals. IGST applies at 5%, unless the goods fall within the specified nil-rated entry.

Warehousing permission confines imported goods to the specifically approved bonded warehouse, preserving continuous customs control. Diversion to an unauthorised private yard breaches warehousing conditions even where the same operator retains custody. Such breach can make goods liable to confiscation without proof of clandestine clearance, duty evasion, sale, or mens rea. An importer may remain responsible for diversion by an authorised warehouse operator unless evidence rebuts the presumption of knowledge and consent. Search or electronic-evidence objections do not affect proceedings where independent transport, gate, warehouse, statement, and physical-verification evidence establishes non-deposit in the designated warehouse. Provisional release does not preclude confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty.

Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E may be satisfied through an employer's payment where the payment is demonstrably made on behalf of and attributable to each appellant. ICEGATE's electronic voluntary-payment facility requires registration and an IEC, which foreign-national appellants may be unable to obtain independently because of IEC, PAN and Indian mobile-number requirements. Challans identifying each appellant and the challenged order, together with employer indemnity bonds accepting liability for penalties and related losses, establish the required attribution. Such employer-funded payment is treated as the appellants' payment, allowing the customs appeal pre-deposit requirement to be met.

Writ challenges to orders-in-original should ordinarily yield to the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly placed noticees were required to pursue appeals, and the appeal against the later order-in-original could be filed within one month without a limitation objection. Attached bank accounts could be released pending appeal where Revenue interests were secured by appropriation of the statutory pre-deposit from those accounts and an unconditional bank guarantee for the remaining amount, allowing continued business operations.

Limitation for customs appeals may exclude time spent pursuing refund and amendment proceedings where the importer acted diligently under binding jurisdictional law that treated refund as an independent remedy. A subsequent requirement to modify the assessment before seeking refund created transitional circumstances supporting application of principles underlying limitation-law exclusion. The period up to 02.06.2020 was treated as excludable, and statutory time extensions further preserved appeals filed on 31.08.2020. Separately, an appeal filed within twenty-eight days of the out-of-charge date fell within the prescribed customs appeal period. Limitation objections therefore did not prevent merits adjudication of the restored matters.

Customs-duty refund issues include whether FOB value may be treated as cum-duty value, the applicability of the CBEC circular dated 10 November 2008, and the effect of a final assessment that was not challenged. The scope for correcting an assessment under Section 154 of the Customs Act is distinguished from reassessment under Section 17(4). These issues arise in considering whether a customs-duty refund can be determined after an assessment has attained finality.

Third-party material cannot sustain an addition for alleged unaccounted cash purchases unless the material is disclosed to the assessee and requested cross-examination is provided. The addition rested solely on software allegedly recovered from a supplier, while the assessee produced records of accounted purchases, bank payments and related export transactions. Withholding the underlying material, the supplier representative's statement and cross-examination denied the assessee an effective opportunity to rebut the allegation. The assessee was not required to prove the negative proposition that no cash purchases occurred before access to the alleged contrary evidence. The addition was therefore unsustainable and deleted.

Overdue interest on non-performing assets is not treated as accrued income where RBI prudential norms indicate uncertain recovery, despite mercantile accounting. Release of a provision for non-performing assets does not fall within section 41(1) where the statutory deduction for bad and doubtful debts is not a loss, expenditure or trading liability, unless it represents recovery of an actual written-off debt. Provision for standard assets may qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(viia), subject to the statutory ceiling, and aggregate average rural advances under Rule 6ABA include opening balances and monthly outstanding advances. Quantification requires verification of the provision created. Penalty is not justified merely because a fully disclosed deduction claim is disallowed without concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Bank branches were not liable as assessees in default for failing to deduct tax at source on leave travel concession reimbursements involving foreign travel during the period covered by binding interim directions. Although the exemption was unavailable on merits, the interim directions treated the reimbursements as not constituting income for tax-deduction purposes. A default can arise only where a legally enforceable obligation to deduct tax exists and remains unfulfilled; the subsisting directions displaced that obligation for the relevant period. Consequently, no consequential interest was chargeable.

COVID-19-related unabsorbed fixed overheads that are exceptional, identifiable and non-recurring should be excluded from operating costs when computing the tested party's operating margin, where they materially impair comparability. Capacity-underutilisation adjustment requires comparable-company data and may be determined afresh using statutory information-gathering powers, with an opportunity for the assessee to respond. Under TNMM, transfer-pricing adjustment is confined to international transactions with associated enterprises and cannot extend to unrelated-party dealings. Bad-debt treatment requires verification to prevent double addition. Working-capital adjustment requires evidence of material differences between the tested party and comparables and their effect on price, cost or profit.