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.

Service tax on corporate guarantees requires provision of a taxable service for consideration. Where an enterprise furnishes corporate guarantees to associated enterprises without charging commission, fees, interest, or any other consideration, no taxable value arises. A notional value derived from market rates applicable to bank guarantees cannot be treated as consideration for service tax purposes. Authorities concerning corporate guarantees supported by actual commission or other consideration do not apply where the guarantees are gratuitous. Corporate guarantees furnished without consideration are therefore not liable to service tax, and the demand was dropped.

Shared rent recovered from associate entities for residential premises used by common employees or directors does not attract service tax under renting of immovable property where the recipient is neither the owner nor a sublessor. Residential character was supported by utility bills and lease arrangements, while no material established use for commerce or business, a necessary condition for taxability. The recoveries represented only proportionate rent contributions from associate entities. The disputed levy and retrospective amendment also supported a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. Accordingly, shared rent for premises not used for commerce or business was treated as not liable to service tax.

Corporate guarantees issued for subsidiaries or associates without charging commission or interest do not attract service tax under Banking and Other Financial Services. Taxability requires a service provider, recipient, taxable service and consideration; where no consideration flows to the guarantor, the essential element of a taxable service is absent. Corporate guarantees were not specifically covered by that service category, and valuation provisions cannot create or deem consideration where none exists. Non-monetary benefits relevant to valuation cannot establish consideration. Consequently, service-tax demands, interest and penalties relating to such gratuitous corporate guarantees are unsustainable.

Extended limitation for a service-tax demand depends on proof of deliberate suppression with intent to evade, rather than mere non-payment or non-disclosure. Pantry-car operations conducted under an IRCTC licence may be characterised as outdoor catering where contractual obligations extend beyond selling pre-packed food; however, taxability also requires an established contractual basis, identifiable service recipient and consideration. Divergent views arose on whether the operator's disclosures during departmental enquiry negated suppression and whether the necessary elements of the alleged taxable service were proved. The dispute was referred for determination by a Third Member.

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme benefit cannot be denied solely because the departmental payment record reflects the CIN date one day after the claimed payment date. Payment of the amount determined in Form SVLDRS-3 supports entitlement to the scheme benefit where the discrepancy is a minor procedural delay. Declarations may be manually examined and processed for issuance of the discharge certificate, with the request requiring manual processing within four weeks.

Accounting Standards and illustrative indicators cannot override statutory definitions of an associate company or related party. Genuine real-estate transactions, non-registration of MoUs, accounting-treatment differences, group affiliation and transaction values do not alone establish control, significant influence, artificial profit inflation or a fraudulent securities-market scheme. Consolidation and related-party disclosures are not required where statutory criteria are unmet. Fraudulent and unfair trade practices require established facts demonstrating deception, market impact or other relevant misconduct, rather than inferences from group association or financial reporting differences. Proceedings initiated long after the underlying disclosures and acts, without reasonable cause, are treated as delayed. The majority conclusion rejected the alleged financial misrepresentation, disclosure breaches and consequential liability.

Conditional votes supporting a revival scheme cannot be treated as unconditional statutory assent where the attached modifications affect allottees' contractual and financial rights. Valid approval under scheme-sanction provisions requires the prescribed majority to accept the arrangement placed for sanction, with adequate disclosure enabling informed decisions by each affected class. Numerical support and majority commercial judgment become relevant only after valid assent, informed participation and fairness to the class as a whole are established. The revival scheme's approval was not validly established because conditional votes, proposed modifications and objections required examination; fresh consideration was required in compliance with the statutory procedure.

DGFT import restrictions do not apply to ship stores retained on board when a vessel converts from foreign run to coastal run, provided they are intended solely for crew consumption, duty is paid on estimated consumption, and the balance remains on board. Fuel incidental to a vessel is treated as an integral part of the vessel rather than an ordinary import, and the same rationale extends to such ship stores. As the stores are not imported for trading, confiscation and penalties based on ITC-policy restrictions are unsustainable.

Supplementary show cause notices cannot introduce a fresh, time-barred substantive proposal to deny preferential customs exemption or enhance duty without adequate opportunity to respond. Preferential origin certificates authenticated and accepted at import remain valid absent reliable evidence of falsity, cancellation, revocation, or importer involvement in irregularity. Reclassification of decorative PVD-coated stainless-steel products requires cogent technical evidence, including appropriate testing; retracted statements cannot support reclassification without statutory safeguards. Declared transaction value cannot be rejected or enhanced without prescribed valuation procedures, evidence of additional payment, or material justifying rejection. Where false origin, misclassification, and undervaluation are unproved, consequential duty, interest, confiscation-related liabilities, and penalties lack legal basis.

Export valuation proceedings cannot sustain rejection of FOB value, denial of drawback, confiscation consequences or penalties for later shipping bills solely on an earlier investigation whose foundational findings have failed. Where no independent enquiry supports the later exports, and foreign remittances matched declared FOB value, departmental costing lacks reliable evidentiary support, and no flowback of consideration is established, the consequential adverse action is unsustainable. No pre-deposit is required on drawback that has not been disbursed to the exporter, as no amount has been received for deposit.

Declared export value cannot be rejected for overvaluation solely on parallel or pro-forma invoices unrelated to the disputed consignment. In the absence of contemporaneous export-price comparisons, market inquiry, or evidence of financial flow-back from the overseas buyer, the overvaluation charge fails; redemption fine and the enhanced penalty under Section 114AA were set aside. Past generation of such invoices nevertheless supported retention of the original penalty on the partnership firm under Section 114. Separate penalties on a partner and the firm for the same infraction constitute double punishment because the firm is not distinct from its partners for this purpose; the partner's penalties were set aside.

Customs Broker licensing obligations prohibit clearance activity through another broker's credentials without importer authorisation in the acting broker's own name. Where a broker receives import documents, deputes its G-Card holder and undertakes clearance-related work for prohibited goods, it must exercise due diligence, advise the importer of restrictions, report non-compliance to Customs, and maintain business records. Consent or an arrangement with the credential-holding broker does not cure these independent obligations. Breaches of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 supported revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty; relief granted separately to another broker did not negate those breaches.

Expenditure incurred for acquiring or expanding an undertaking falls within the specific preliminary-expense amortisation regime and cannot be claimed as a residual revenue deduction. Repairs to leased premises remain deductible except to the extent capital in nature, while depreciation on guest-house flats and office equipment was accepted on consistent prior treatment. Intellectual-property renewal costs require evidence that they protect existing rights rather than create a capital asset. For exempt-income expenditure, interest disallowance is unwarranted where own funds exceed investments without a borrowing nexus, but book profit must include the full Rule 8D disallowance. Transfer-pricing loan and guarantee benchmarking was sustained; executive remuneration requires fresh verification.

Uncorroborated entries in a diary seized from a third party cannot, by themselves, sustain an addition for undisclosed income where no independent evidence links the assessee to the alleged land transactions or receipts. No relevant documents were found during the assessee's search, the assessee denied ownership or dealings in the plots, and neither the person from whom the diary was seized nor the alleged purchaser admitted that the entries related to the assessee. As the addition rested on presumption without corroborative material, it was unsustainable and deleted.

Cash deposits during demonetisation attributed to recorded cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely because trading patterns departed from prior periods. The addition requires evidence that the sales explanation is unacceptable, including absent stock, unsupported purchases, or material defects in trading results. Audited books, stock records, purchase and inventory details, and VAT returns supporting the availability and sale of goods substantiate the deposits where no adverse third-party verification or discrepancies are established. Suspicion regarding related-party transactions or possible VAT-sales manipulation cannot replace proof. Taxing cash receipts already recorded as sales, without disproving those sales, would amount to double taxation.