Failure to serve the show-cause notice preceding assessment, coupled with non-service of the assessment order, violates the principles of natural justice. Where notices cannot be served at the principal place of business and the assessment order sent by registered post is returned undelivered, the assessee is not treated as having received the relevant proceedings. The assessment therefore requires fresh adjudication after proper notice is given to the assessee.

Recovery of disputed tax was challenged through a writ petition while the underlying tax appeal remained pending before the Tribunal. A statutory remedy was available to seek a stay of recovery from the Additional Commissioner, and no basis for writ intervention was identified. The petitioner was therefore required to pursue that alternative remedy for stay of recovery rather than obtain writ relief.

Timely rectification representations cannot be rejected as time-barred merely because the tax authority failed to dispose of them within the stipulated period. Where representations were submitted within time and remained pending, the authority cannot rely on its own inaction to deny consideration on limitation grounds. The stated conclusion is that the time-bar rejection was unsustainable and that the rectification representations must be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

A fiscal assessment cannot impose tax on packing material unless the show-cause notice proposes that levy; the levy was therefore invalid. Purchase and sales particulars cannot be rejected solely because they are not in the format requested by the assessing authority when no further information is sought. Such non-consideration denies the assessee a meaningful opportunity to substantiate its claim and violates principles of natural justice. The assessment required redetermination after fresh notice and a proper hearing.

Input tax credit requires the purchasing dealer to prove genuine purchases and actual physical receipt of goods through reliable independent evidence. Tax invoices, self-generated weighbridge slips, goods-received notes and payment details do not by themselves establish the claim where they do not identify suppliers and are unsupported by transport receipts matching the stated vehicles. The Gujarat HC material states that the absence of independent proof of goods movement justified denying input tax credit, as the purchasing dealer did not discharge its burden of proving genuine transactions and delivery.

Penalty for wilful suppression of turnover under Section 27(3)(b) may be sustained where the record establishes deliberate non-disclosure, even if the assessment order does not expressly use the words "wilful suppression". Turnover disclosed in Form-WW but omitted from monthly returns, excluded from deemed assessment, and detected only on later inspection supports an inference of intentional suppression. Delayed filing of Form-WW and an unexplained omission from periodic returns are material indicators of such intent. On these facts, penalty for wilful suppression of turnover was valid.

A review petition repeating grounds and reliefs already considered in earlier miscellaneous applications is not maintainable. Where those applications were dismissed after hearing both sides, and the earlier order expressly confined its effect to the case's peculiar facts, a renewed request for identical relief is misconceived and lacks merit. The review petition was dismissed as defective and on merits.

CENVAT credit was available for business-related input services, including C&F agency services used beyond the factory gate, because they fell within the inclusive definition of input service under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Services used by a manufacturer for its business remain eligible unless specifically covered by an exclusion. As the disputed services were not shown to fall within any exclusion category, denial and recovery of credit under Rule 14 were not sustainable.

Captively consumed shop-floor equipment, including trolleys, lifting tackles, trailers, cabinets, workbenches, racks and tables, qualifies for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. where it is used in or in relation to manufacture, is classifiable under Chapter 94, and is not within an excluded category. An operative prior determination on the identical issue must be followed under judicial discipline. The denial of captive-consumption exemption therefore could not sustain the central excise duty demand. The eight-day delay in filing the appeal also fell within the condonable period before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Central excise duty cannot be demanded by comparing the Sanchor unit's ER-1 assessable value with sales in consolidated financial statements that also include the Mumbai unit. The reconciliation showed inter-unit consignment transactions and established that the Sanchor unit's ER-1 reported sales exceeded the sales reflected in the financial statements. No unreconciled difference in assessable value therefore remained. The alleged short reporting in the ER-1 return could not sustain the duty demand, and no consequential penalty was imposable.

Service-tax refund is not barred by unjust enrichment where the contractual consideration is inclusive of tax and no separate tax amount is recoverable from the service recipient, because the service provider bears the tax incidence. The same principle applies where service tax is separately shown in invoices but the recipient has not paid that amount; supporting records and a chartered accountant's certificate may establish that the burden was not passed on. Refund of tax paid on non-taxable services is available where the claimant proves that it retained the tax burden.

CENVAT credit is described as admissible for steel, cement, welding electrodes and gases used before 07.07.2009 to fabricate foundations, platforms, supports, conveyor structures, galleries, pipelines, chimneys and related structures required for installing and operating capital goods. Embedding those structures in earth does not negate their direct or indirect use in relation to manufacture. The later exclusion of such materials from credit eligibility is treated as prospective rather than clarificatory or retrospective, and therefore does not apply to credit taken before its effective date.

Extended limitation for an excise-duty demand cannot be invoked merely because the department later relies on records already made available during audit. The audit deficiency memo was based on the assessee's records, and their availability did not establish suppression or other conduct required to justify the extended period. The demand issued by invoking extended limitation was therefore time-barred and set aside in favour of the assessee.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery cannot rest merely on audit-based scrutiny or discrepancies between financial statements and self-assessed returns. Where an earlier notice had addressed identical alleged short payment, a subsequent notice could not again invoke the extended period without establishing fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax; the demand was therefore time-barred. On merits, goods supplied under separate invoices were not consideration for business auxiliary service, residential letting was not taxable, and turnover reconciliation established no additional liability for supply of tangible goods. The confirmed tax, interest and penalties could not survive.

Developmental and composite works, including horticulture, landscaping, beautification, road laying and paving, are distinguished from maintenance or repair because they create or improve assets rather than preserve existing assets. Composite material-and-labour contracts cannot be artificially split for taxation under Maintenance or Repair Service without segregating taxable and non-taxable elements. Material values may be excluded subject to documentary verification, while qualifying road-related services receive the stated exemption and retrospective relief. Extended limitation and related penalties require fraud, collusion, wilful suppression or intent to evade tax; classification, valuation or exemption disputes alone do not establish those conditions.

Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 restricts credit on supplementary invoices only where additional service tax has become recoverable from the service provider due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intentional contravention. Recoverability requires proceedings and confirmation of a service-tax demand. Voluntary payment of tax, interest and penalty after investigation, without a show-cause notice or adjudicated demand against the provider, does not meet that condition. As supplementary invoices are prescribed credit documents, Cenvat credit remains admissible in those circumstances.

Service tax on royalty paid under reverse charge for mining rights depends on the mining lease terms and the date the right was granted. Before 1 April 2016, Government services generally fell within the negative list; following amendment, Government services supplied to business entities became taxable. Without the mining lease agreements, the factual basis to determine the applicable regime was unavailable. The demand order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after examination of the leases under the applicable law.

Anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation was unavailable where investigation material alleged that the petitioner facilitated a sub-contract to an entity connected with his son and that proceeds were transferred to family members. The absence of direct credit to the petitioner's account was not determinative, as further investigation was required to trace the money trail and pre-arrest bail does not permit conclusive assessment of evidence. The statutory twin conditions for bail could not be satisfied. Medical records also did not show a continuing serious condition, emergency, or urgent intervention warranting protection from arrest.

Inherent jurisdiction under PMLA is discussed alongside the availability of revisional remedies, mandatory pre-cognizance hearing requirements in complaint proceedings, limits on judicial remand beyond fifteen days, PMLA bail conditions, and allegations of transnational conspiracy. The text reports that the cognizance process must restart after affording the petitioner a pre-cognizance hearing, while custody and bail are to be determined under the applicable statutory procedure. It further records dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, with liberty to seek regular bail before the High Court.

A clerical rectification that only corrects the pronouncement date and does not alter substantive findings does not restart the appellate limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A Section 9 application is governed by the three-year limitation period under Article 137; balance confirmations extend time only where they are proved, unequivocal acknowledgments made before limitation expires. Unproved confirmations containing inconsistent liability figures did not establish a valid acknowledgment. Correspondence raising reconciliation, set-off and ledger objections before the demand notice established a genuine pre-existing dispute, independently preventing insolvency proceedings. The insolvency process could not be invoked for a stale and disputed operational debt.