GST adjudication under Section 74 must rest on reliable, tested evidence and a fair opportunity to contest relied-upon statements and documents. Cross-examination of ordinary witnesses should ordinarily be allowed where their statements influence the demand; non-retraction or presumed witness bias does not by itself justify refusal. Documents requiring explanation from their authors or custodians must be properly proved. Multi-year GST demands cannot be determined through a composite block assessment, as liability, credit, interest, limitation and compliance are tax-period-wise. Confiscation proposals likewise require a sound evidentiary and procedural foundation.

The six-month notice interval under Section 74(2) of the CGST Act is under examination as a potentially mandatory jurisdictional limitation or a directory procedural timeline. The provision requires a show cause notice to be issued at least six months before the outer deadline for an adjudication order under Section 74(10). The competing views turn on whether statutory silence on the consequence of breach permits non-compliance, or whether the interval protects natural justice by ensuring meaningful time for reply and hearing. The issue remains unsettled, with interim protection operating in the reported proceedings.

Transfer pricing tolerance range under the second proviso to section 92C(2) deems the actual transaction price to be the arm's length price where its variation from the determined arm's length price is within the notified limit. The expression "so determined" covers an arm's length price determined under both the main provision and the first proviso. The tolerance benefit therefore applies whether the arm's length price arises from multiple comparable prices or from a single remaining comparable in the comparable set.

The recurring nature exception under the GST departmental litigation policy applies where substantially the same question of law can arise repeatedly under substantially similar facts, notwithstanding monetary limits. It is not determined by the number of disputes, taxpayers affected, or prospective revenue. In GST, classification, valuation, exemption eligibility, place of supply, taxability of continuing arrangements, refunds and input tax credit may be recurring where the same statutory principle governs successive transactions or tax periods. Disputes dependent on evidence unique to an individual transaction ordinarily remain fact-specific and are not recurring merely because similar litigation may arise again.

Agricultural land outside the prescribed municipal or cantonment limits and aerial-distance criteria is excluded from capital assets under section 2(14)(iii). Agricultural activity or agricultural income is not a stated condition where revenue records classify the land as agricultural, no conversion to non-agricultural use has occurred, and location requirements are satisfied. Profit on transfer of such land is presented as outside income for tax purposes rather than exempt income and as not requiring disclosure in the income-tax return.

Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition is the principal standard under the Competition Act, 2002 for evaluating whether agreements, dominant-enterprise conduct, or combinations significantly harm competition in India. Horizontal restraints are presumed harmful unless rebutted, while vertical restraints require case-specific assessment. Abuse concerns arise from exclusionary or unfair use of dominance, rather than dominance itself. Assessment requires defining the relevant product and geographic markets and balancing entry barriers, foreclosure, and exclusion against consumer benefits, production or distribution efficiencies, and technical or scientific development.

ISO 9001:2015 provides a Quality Management System framework for consistently meeting customer, applicable legal and regulatory, and organisational requirements while pursuing continual improvement. It requires organisations to define their context, QMS scope and processes; demonstrate leadership commitment; identify risks and opportunities; set measurable quality objectives; provide competent personnel and documented information; and control operational processes, suppliers and nonconforming outputs. Performance is monitored through customer feedback, audits, measurements, inspections and management review, followed by corrective action and process improvement. Certification generally includes implementation, internal review, correction of nonconformities and staged external audits.

Dispatch of a written demand notice by post to the accused's correct address raises a presumption of issuance under the General Clauses Act; actual service is not required for cheque-dishonour liability. Once the acknowledgment card is tendered, the accused must substantiate denial of receipt, including by postman evidence where appropriate. Signature comparison alone does not prove that notice was not issued. Unrebutted evidence of the loan's source, coupled with admitted prior dealings and issuance of the cheque as security, supports the statutory presumptions of consideration and liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Failure to prove discharge of the debt sustains conviction for cheque dishonour.

Assignment of a bank's loan, rights and existing mortgage security to a reconstruction company does not create a fresh mortgage, charge or encumbrance over immovable property. The Panchayat and Municipal stamp-duty provisions governing specified transfers or mortgages of immovable property therefore do not apply to such an assignment. A notification under the Indian Stamp Act separately prescribes duty on loan securitisation or assignment of debt backed by immovable security, calculated on the loan or debt assigned rather than property market value. Requiring further mortgage-related duty would duplicate recovery and result in unjust enrichment; no duty beyond that payable under the assignment-deed notification is chargeable.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not extend vicarious criminal liability to family members of a sole proprietorship, which has no separate legal identity or recognised business structure comparable to a company, firm or association. Liability for cheque dishonour under Section 138 is confined to the account-holding drawer unless valid vicarious liability applies; a non-signatory family member who neither maintained nor signed on the account cannot be prosecuted, particularly where the account holder had died and the banking mandate was inoperative. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction may quash a prosecution that lacks essential statutory ingredients and is ex-facie an abuse of process.

Classification of the Gurugram unit as an expansion of an existing industrial unit rather than a new industrial unit under Rule 28C required reconsideration. The text notes that the existing Sonepat unit had not claimed a tax concession and that the application was allowed on merits, not rejected for alleged suppression. These facts and the applicable definitions were material to determining eligibility for the concession. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, with entitlement to the claimed benefit left open.

CENVAT credit on imported base oil was available for the full Central Excise duty or CVD recorded in invoices and Bills of Entry, despite a shortage in the quantity physically received at the factory. Comparable earlier proceedings involving the same assessee had already accepted credit based on the duty shown in the prescribed documents notwithstanding short receipt. Applying that settled position, the demand denying proportionate credit for the shortage was unsustainable.

Freight and transportation charges incurred up to buyers' premises under FOR destination sales form part of the assessable value for central excise duty because delivery occurs at that destination. However, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked where an earlier notice had already disclosed the same freight exclusion to the Department. Conflicting decisions on the place of removal may also support a bona fide belief that freight was not includible, negating suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty. Consequently, a demand issued beyond the normal limitation period, along with related interest and penalty, cannot survive.

CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs procured from units availing exemption was available before the Rule 12 amendment took effect, where the inputs suffered duty, were used for final products or output services, and were received under prescribed documents. In the absence of an express pre-amendment prohibition, a later express provision could not restrict credit for the earlier period. Extended limitation could not apply because returns were filed, audits and refund claims had been processed, and no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was established. The disputed credit remained available and recovery was time-barred.

CENVAT credit on capital goods in a captive power plant is examined under the exclusive-use test in Rule 6(4): substantial captive use of electricity in manufacturing dutiable goods means surplus external supply does not itself establish exclusive use for exempt output. Specified common input services may similarly qualify for full credit under Rule 6(5) where not exclusively linked to exempt output. Credit on iron and steel repair items depends on their actual use in maintaining existing plant and machinery rather than their description. The discussion also addresses the sustainability of duty demands on waste and scrap from capital goods where factual findings lack demonstrated statutory or evidentiary infirmity.

Extended limitation for service-tax demand cannot rest solely on income-tax data where no investigation establishes the nature of taxable service, service recipient, or consideration. Form 26AS did not show receipts for provision of services, and the explanation that receipts arose from trading in plant saplings and seeds was not meaningfully examined. The stated business activities supported a bona fide belief that service-tax registration and payment were unnecessary. As suppression or wilful intent to evade tax was not established, the extended period was held inapplicable and the demand was set aside.

Res judicata does not bar an appeal arising from remand proceedings where those proceedings continue the original refund-credit dispute rather than constitute parallel proceedings on the same cause of action. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code applies only where an issue was directly and substantially in issue and finally decided in an earlier proceeding. In service-tax appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) must identify the points for determination and give a reasoned decision under the applicable appellate provisions. Dismissal solely on res judicata, without deciding the refund-credit dispute on merits, requires reconsideration through a de novo hearing.

Mechanical adjournment requests cannot justify postponement beyond the statutory maximum of three adjournments. Where the appellant repeatedly sought adjournments and remained absent, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.

Premiums retained when life-insurance policies lapse or are repudiated for non-payment or misdeclaration do not constitute consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such retention is an incident of the original insurance contract, which becomes void or lapses on specified defaults, rather than consideration for an independent obligation to tolerate those defaults. A declared service requires a specific contractual obligation to refrain from, tolerate, or do an act, with a direct nexus between that obligation and the consideration. Taxing retained premiums separately would also result in double taxation. Accordingly, the service-tax demand, interest and penalties are unsustainable.

Reverse-charge service tax on legal services received from advocates or law firms was revenue-neutral where the recipient could claim full CENVAT credit for use in providing taxable output services. Because payment of tax and corresponding credit availability created no net revenue loss, the service-tax demand was unsustainable. As the underlying tax liability could not survive, consequential interest and penalty were also unsustainable. The confirmed reverse-charge liability on the disputed legal services was annulled, with consequential relief available in accordance with law.