Extended limitation for recovery of service tax on weighbridge-service receipts cannot be invoked where the assessee was registered, regularly filed returns, paid tax on other taxable services, and recorded the receipts in its financial records. The material did not establish suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; the non-payment was treated as a bona fide mistake in a dispute involving legal interpretation and detected during audit. The service-tax demand was therefore time-barred.

Service tax on manpower supply services was payable entirely by the recipient under reverse charge from 1 April 2015, leaving the service provider not liable to collect or deposit the tax. Where the Department retained tax deposited by the provider and also recovered tax on the same services from the recipient, retention of the duplicate collection amounted to unjust enrichment. The provider's delayed awareness, arising only on receipt of the recipient's debit note, constituted exceptional circumstances in which statutory limitation could not defeat restitution. A refund of the wrongly retained amount was therefore available despite limitation and notwithstanding an appellate remedy.

Closure of the corporate insolvency resolution process was considered appropriate because no claims were received after the public announcement and the parties had entered discharge arrangements. In the absence of a subsisting claimant or other impediment to termination, the process could be closed. The discharge arrangements supported release of the bank lien and disbursement in accordance with those arrangements. The impugned order was set aside, the insolvency process was closed, and the bank lien was withdrawn for the agreed disbursement.

Insolvency proceedings based on an operational creditor's application cannot continue where the claimed debt has been fully settled, the creditor consents to reversal of admission, and no other creditor claim remains unpaid. A genuine dispute over transportation-charge billing, including the distance measurements used for invoicing, existed before the statutory demand notice and independently precluded sustaining the application. The only other claim received during the process, for provident-fund dues, was also discharged in full. The insolvency application therefore lacked any subsisting creditor claim requiring continuation of the process.

Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, effective from 26 May 2026, excludes insolvency-resolution applications concerning personal guarantors to corporate debtors from the Section 96 interim moratorium. The exclusion extends to applications already pending on that date because it operates on a continuing status and does not impair vested rights. Consequently, interim arbitral protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is available. Where arbitration agreements and indebtedness are undisputed, limited measures requiring asset disclosure and restraining dissipation of disclosed assets may protect the creditor pending arbitration, without directing any deposit.

An arbitral award constitutes a claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and an award-holder is a creditor. Where the award-holder does not submit its claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP and the claim is excluded from the approved resolution plan, the claim is extinguished and a pending challenge to the award cannot revive it. Money deposited in court solely as security for a stay of award enforcement remains an asset of the corporate debtor because custody does not transfer ownership to the award-holder. Once the underlying claim is extinguished, the award-holder has no unconditional entitlement to the deposit, which is refundable with accrued interest to the corporate debtor.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction does not permit the High Court to pre-empt the NCLT's initial determination of objections to its jurisdiction, the maintainability of execution petitions, or the executability of an NCLAT order under the Companies Act. Those objections must be pursued before the NCLT. Stay of the execution proceedings was also declined because related civil appeals were pending before the Supreme Court, which had granted only limited interim relief. Any further stay was to be sought in those appeals before the Supreme Court. The petitioners were therefore directed to pursue their substantive objections before the NCLT and interim relief before the Supreme Court.

Maintains focus on the maintainability of an appeal from an ex parte ad interim order and a director's standing in corporate governance disputes despite lacking shareholding. It addresses the statutory meaning and removal of a director, the bar on civil court jurisdiction, and whether absence of locus before the NCLT permits recourse to civil courts. It also considers oppression and mismanagement remedies, waiver of eligibility conditions, and the requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and clean hands for interim relief.

Penalty for abetment of attempted prohibited export requires admissible evidence of a positive act of assistance or knowing participation. The CESTAT Bangalore found no evidence that the exporter, its managing partner, employees, or the customs house agent loaded or tampered with the container, knew of substituted red sanders, or participated in clandestine stuffing; penalties were therefore set aside. Deficiencies in the confiscation order did not warrant remand because confiscation was unchallenged and no evidentiary basis existed to reconsider penalty against the customs house agent. The Department's appeal for de novo adjudication was dismissed.

Transfer of duty-free imported material to processors is not job work where they use independently procured principal inputs, issue tax invoices for intermediate goods, and adjust the imported material's value against the invoice price. Such arrangements constitute prohibited sale or transfer in breach of exemption conditions, supporting confiscation, duty recovery with interest, and penalty against the importing company. Import bonds remain enforceable until exemption conditions are fulfilled or the bonds are discharged; suppression of the sale as job work prevents the demand from being time-barred. A director knowingly involved in the diversion may be personally penalised under Section 112(a)(ii), with penalty reduced and its statutory basis specified.

Penalty under Section 112A cannot be sustained against a customs broker's G-card holder without evidence that the person knew of, abetted, committed, or omitted an act rendering restricted goods liable to confiscation. Returning import documents without clearing the goods after detecting a mismatch between the declared description and cargo, and informing Customs, did not establish such involvement. Cash credited to the account was explained as customs duty, transportation, and logistics expenses. The penalty was set aside.

Textile fabric cut into triangular umbrella panels is treated as a made-up textile article where it acquires the essential character and commercial identity of an umbrella panel. Section Note 7 to Section XI covers articles cut otherwise than into squares or rectangles, and the specific heading for made-up textile articles takes precedence over the general heading for woven synthetic filament fabrics. Extended limitation for differential customs duty requires established suppression or misdeclaration; where the goods and claimed classification were fully declared in Bills of Entry, a classification dispute alone does not justify its invocation. Reclassification, differential duty, interest and penalty are therefore unsustainable on these stated principles.

Simultaneous DEPB benefits and 7% brand rate drawback for the bus-body portion were permissible under the continuing simplified drawback dispensation without duty-paid documents, absent proof that both benefits reimbursed the same duty incidence. An unwithdrawn beneficial circular adopting the average drawback rate could not be curtailed by later clarifications imposing inconsistent conditions, rendering the denial and recovery unsustainable for the relevant period. Adjudicating authorities could nevertheless reopen drawback grants alleged to be contrary to law under the Drawback Rules. Recovery of wrongly paid drawback was governed by an independent mechanism and, although no specific limitation applied, had to commence within a reasonable time; the proceedings met that standard.

Customs-duty exemption for a diagnostic centre remained unavailable because the applicable notification conditions, including the inpatient-bed requirement, were undisputedly not met. DGHS communications expressing a view that diagnostic centres need not maintain beds, and seeking clarification or their inclusion, did not amend those binding conditions. Review on newly discovered material requires relevant evidence that was unavailable despite due diligence and could alter the judgment; it cannot be used to re-argue the merits. The communications therefore did not support review, and the review petition was dismissed.

Export prohibition on sugar, introduced in public interest to protect domestic availability, closing stocks and price stability, operates prospectively as a reasonable restriction and is not displaced by commercial hardship absent arbitrariness, perversity, mala fides or irrationality. Quota allocation under essential-commodity controls and export restrictions under foreign-trade law serve distinct purposes. Private export contracts, advance remittances and mill-level quota allocations do not create an enforceable right for merchant exporters to export after prohibition. Transitional exports require compliance with prescribed pre-existing irrevocable commercial letter of credit, registration and physical export-pipeline or export-clearance conditions. Promissory estoppel requires supporting material, while legitimate expectation cannot prevent a later public-interest policy change.

Supreme Court considered challenges to two CESTAT final orders arising from customs proceedings and found no good ground to interfere with them. The appeals were dismissed, leaving the CESTAT orders undisturbed. Any pending applications were also disposed of. The text does not state the underlying customs issue, legal reasoning, or substantive principles addressed in the CESTAT orders.

RTGS credits claimed as gold-sale proceeds were treated as a benami transaction because cash deposits in entities controlled by the alleged benamidar, subsequent credits after commission deductions, and banking records established routing of demonetised cash. The gold-sale explanation lacked independent support, with no established relationship with remitters and anomalous invoice rates and weights; the attachment was therefore sustained. Denial of cross-examination did not breach natural justice because no intermediary statement existed, the benamidar's statement was disclosed, and the appellant showed no actual prejudice despite corroborative material. In benami proceedings, cross-examination is not invariably required where disclosed evidence independently supports the transaction.

Rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must rest solely on its averments and annexed documents. Pleadings that property acquired in a son's name came from joint family income and was held for the joint family do not, on their face, establish a benami transaction. The Benami Act excludes property held by a Karta or Hindu undivided family member for family benefit from known family sources, as well as property acquired in a child's name from known individual sources. A benami objection may be proved at trial but cannot justify threshold rejection unless the plaint plainly discloses a statutory benami transaction.

Arm's length remuneration paid to a dependent agent permanent establishment exhausts further profit attribution in India when it fully reflects the agent's functions, assets and risks. Additional attribution is permissible only if the transfer-pricing analysis is deficient or relevant functions or risks have not been priced. Where the enhancement rests solely on a revision order that has been quashed, the enhanced attribution is unsustainable. Profit voluntarily offered under the dual taxpayer approach remains chargeable, and the voluntarily offered attribution is to be accepted.

Registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G granted pursuant to a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment cannot be made conditional on a proposed Supreme Court challenge. A jurisdictional High Court ruling remains binding on authorities within its territorial jurisdiction unless stayed, modified or reversed. A contemplated or pending challenge does not reduce that binding effect. No statutory mechanism permits the authority to qualify statutory recognition or consequential benefits through a caveat based on possible future developments. The caveats were therefore directed to be deleted, leaving the registration and approval effective without qualification.