Input tax credit entitlement requires the recipient to establish genuine transactions through invoices, proof of receipt, transport records, and banking evidence. Supplier non-compliance or Form GSTR-2A mismatch does not automatically make credit ineligible where there is no collusion, fictitious invoicing, or sham transaction. Extended limitation under section 74 requires material particulars supporting fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression; mechanical statutory allegations and supplier default alone cannot establish culpable conduct by the recipient.

Section 74 of the CGST Act may be invoked where the Proper Officer forms a prima facie, rational view from available material that tax short-payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful input tax credit is attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Materials from scrutiny, audit, inspection, intelligence, or investigation may support that view, provided the statutory satisfaction remains that of the Proper Officer. Where the fraud-based allegations are not established during adjudication, Section 75(2) permits determination as though the notice had been issued under Section 73, without retrospective invalidation of the proceedings.

GST adjudication under Section 74(9) requires the proper officer to consider the taxable person's representation before determining tax, interest, and penalty, while Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing on request or before an adverse decision. Challenges to such orders ordinarily proceed through statutory appeal. Writ intervention is limited to exceptional circumstances, including patent jurisdictional defects or manifest violation of natural justice. Disputes over hearing notices, coerced statements, cross-examination, adequacy of reasoning, and factual findings generally require examination of records by the appellate authority.

ISO 41001:2018 establishes an internationally recognised framework for creating, implementing, maintaining and improving a Facility Management System. It applies to organisations managing facilities directly or through outsourced service providers and covers buildings, infrastructure, workplace services, maintenance, utilities, safety, environmental performance and support services. The framework requires strategic alignment, defined processes, risk-based thinking, leadership, measurable objectives, competent personnel, documented information, operational controls, performance evaluation and continual improvement. It supports maintenance management, supplier oversight, space management, emergency preparedness, resource optimisation and integration with other management systems.

Daily Sync replaces irregular status follow-ups with a fixed daily process using one shared tracker for every assigned task. Each participant reports completed work and makes a specific, time-bound commitment for the current day, allowing performance to be checked without ambiguity. Where a person is blocked, the issue, a proposed solution, and a named helper must be identified before the meeting ends. The process depends on mandatory tracker use, a strict time limit, and measurable commitments, while discouraging vague status narration and unrecorded tasks.

Tax Controversy Management is an integrated tax-governance discipline covering identification, prevention, preparation, management, resolution and post-dispute improvement across the lifecycle of tax risks. A formal Tax Controversy Risk Register should assess legal merits, documentation quality, exposure, adjustment risk, regulatory sensitivity and business consequences. Prevention requires contemporaneous evidence and review of tax-sensitive transactions before implementation, while centralized notice management supports deadline monitoring and consistent responses. Defence strategy should analyse facts, law, interpretation, evidence, precedent and risk, supported by governance, exposure models, technology, root-cause analysis and a formal playbook.

Qualifying codeine cough syrup remains outside the NDPS Act when it meets the Entry 35 composition limits, has an established therapeutic character, and is genuinely dealt with by a licensed entity for medicinal or scientific purposes. A Drugs and Cosmetics regulatory breach, including retail sale without prescription, does not alone establish NDPS liability without material showing knowing diversion. The exemption is unavailable where stock, sales or transport are knowingly directed to intoxication or other non-medicinal use; in that event, the entire syrup mixture determines the relevant quantity. Bail depends on individual prima facie evidence of conscious possession, knowledge, diversion, or participation in trafficking, rather than unsupported confessions or weak circumstantial material.

Banks may enforce security interests under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for secured loans acquired from non-notified non-banking financial companies. The statutory definitions of borrower, security arrangement, security interest and secured creditor apply purposively to existing loan agreements, regardless of whether the originating lender was covered when the loan was advanced. Assignment to a bank gives the acquired live and owing debt the attributes of a secured debt enforceable under the Act. Objections not adjudicated in the securitisation application remain subject to determination on their merits.

Electronic auto/taxi fare meters are not automobile parts, components or assemblies where their removal does not impair vehicle functioning. Their role in calculating distance-based fares for call taxis and auto-rickshaws, including statutory inspection and sealing for fare collection, is supplementary rather than integral to the vehicle. Consequently, the automobile-parts entry for maximum retail price-based valuation does not cover fare meters, and valuation under Section 4A cannot apply on that basis. Vehicle fitment alone is insufficient; the item must be essential to the vehicle's functioning.

Actual staff-related expenses reimbursed by a client on an actual basis are not includible in the taxable value of manpower recruitment and supply services where Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 expands value beyond the consideration permitted by the charging and valuation provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The service-tax demand was therefore unsustainable. The extended limitation period also could not apply without material demonstrating wilful suppression or misstatement with intent to evade tax, particularly where earlier proceedings covered the same period. Consequential interest and penalty were consequently untenable.

Limitation for an appeal against an adjudication order runs from actual receipt where the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original were sent to an incorrect address. Receipt on 1 October 2023 made the appeal filed on 29 November 2023 timely within the statutory 60-day period. The mandatory pre-deposit requirement is satisfied where a 10% deposit made for a Tribunal appeal exceeds and covers the 7.5% deposit required for an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal should therefore proceed on merits without revisiting limitation or pre-deposit.

Service tax exemption for services used in authorised Special Economic Zone operations arises substantively under Section 26(1)(e) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Section 51 gives that entitlement overriding effect over inconsistent provisions. The six-month refund-claim limit in Notification No. 9/2009-ST is procedural and cannot wholly defeat an undisputed statutory exemption where authorised use and substantive eligibility are established. Authorities on refunds deriving solely from notifications are distinguishable. Refund should therefore not be rejected solely because the claim was filed after the prescribed six-month period.

Employee secondment from an overseas group company to its Indian group entity may constitute taxable manpower recruitment or supply agency service under reverse charge where the overseas entity retains the employment relationship, pays salaries, maintains employment terms and reabsorbs the secondees after secondment. Indian operational control and reimbursement of employment costs without markup do not negate manpower supply. Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade tax. Recorded expenses, banking-channel remittances and conflicting views on taxability do not establish wilful suppression; consequently, a demand wholly beyond normal limitation is time-barred, with interest and penalties not recoverable.

Services involving operation of tube wells and supply of water to municipal water authorities fall within the exemption for services provided to Government, local authorities or governmental authorities in relation to municipal functions. Water supply is a function ordinarily entrusted to municipalities, and consideration calculated per tube well, shift and day confirms the operational water-supply character of the services. Where substantially the same services are supplied to the concerned municipal authorities, the consideration qualifies for exemption under Serial No. 25 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST and is not liable to Service Tax.

Property purchased from an erstwhile owner remained subject to Enforcement Directorate custody under attachment proceedings for alleged money laundering. Lifting the attachment required proof of a valid, saleable title acquired through a transparent transaction. Absence of a no-objection certificate for the transfer, coupled with pending prosecution, prevented determination of whether the purchasers' acquisition was transparent. The property could therefore remain in the auction catalogue, and writ relief restraining its inclusion was unavailable.

Return of a criminal complaint under Section 201 CrPC is unavailable after cognizance has been taken and process issued under Section 204. Sections 200 to 204 constitute the statutory framework for cognizance and issuance of process, and the court cannot recall, review, or return the complaint at that stage. Money laundering is treated as a distinct, continuing offence involving dealings with proceeds of crime. The location of particular properties in another State does not, by itself, displace territorial jurisdiction where the alleged activities include concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection of proceeds as untainted property.

Property purchasers acquiring assets after confirmation of attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act cannot resist auction through subsequent sale deeds where the attachment remains in force and the required Enforcement Directorate no-objection certificate was not obtained. Confirmation predating the purchases, a continuing restraint against sale or alienation, and absence of proof that the attachment was lifted prevent purchasers from claiming exemption from auction. The asserted agricultural character of the properties does not displace the attachment or the auction process proceeding under Supreme Court directions.

Continued retention of seized property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires recorded reasons founded on material, cogent linkage between the assets and proceeds of crime, and the Adjudicating Authority's prima facie satisfaction that retention is necessary for adjudication. Suspicion and unaddressed allegations cannot support retention, and later explanations cannot cure defects in the retention order. Persons asserting ownership over seized jewellery must receive independent notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before their property rights are affected. An alternative appellate remedy does not preclude judicial review where mandatory safeguards, jurisdictional requirements, or natural justice are alleged to have been breached.

Section 10A permanently bars initiation of CIRP for defaults arising during its protected period. Under Section 3(12), a cash credit debt repayable on demand cannot constitute default unless it is due and presently payable; deferred interest recovery and the absence of a prior demand prevent reliance on an earlier asserted default date. For an ad-hoc cash credit facility adjustable within 90 days, excluding the availment date under the General Clauses Act places the earliest default within the protected period. Although amendment of a Section 7 application is permissible, substituted default dates require record support, and unpleaded later demand, recall, or non-payment events cannot create an alternative basis for CIRP.

Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code excludes applications concerning personal guarantors to corporate debtors from the interim moratorium under Section 96 from 26 May 2026. Its reference to an application being filed extends to applications already pending, operating prospectively on their continuing status without impairing vested rights; the identity of the insolvency applicant is irrelevant. Consequently, a pending personal-guarantor insolvency application does not bar a Section 9 arbitration petition after that date. Where arbitration agreements are admitted, narrowly tailored interim measures may include asset disclosure and restraint on alienation or dissipation of disclosed assets, without requiring deposit of the claimed amount.