Pre-01.07.2012 service-tax demands under the positive-list regime required the show cause notice to identify the specific taxable service under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. Foreign-currency expenditure and reverse-charge non-payment alone could not establish liability across heterogeneous transactions. An appellate authority could not introduce new classifications, such as Commercial Training or Coaching Service or Club or Association Service, to cure that foundational omission. Accordingly, the restored demand lacked a valid notice-based basis; consequential interest and Section 78 penalty also failed. Separately adjudicated post-01.07.2012 proceedings remained outside the scope of reopening and retained their existing effect.

Composite engineering assignments are classified by their specific description and essential character under section 65A, rather than by inspection-related components that are ancillary to the overall engineering engagement. Drawing assistance, technical clarification, product development, rectification, material specifications and quality coordination support classification as engineering services rather than Technical Inspection and Certification Service. Services supplied to an overseas contractual recipient for convertible foreign exchange qualify as exports where the recipient is abroad and the Department cannot establish domestic use or that physical availability of goods was necessary. Prior disclosure of the arrangement prevents extended limitation based on wilful suppression; consequential tax, interest and penalties do not survive without sustainable liability.

CENVAT credit remains available for eligible input services received at unregistered premises because registration of the premises is not a condition for credit. Credit is excluded, however, for the service portion of works contracts used to construct or set up BPO branches, absent proof that the services were solely for repair, renovation, or modernisation. Extended limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade tax; disclosure in ST-3 returns, refund claims, and related proceedings confines recovery to the normal period. Interest follows the surviving inadmissible credit demand, while penalties do not arise merely from non-inclusion of premises under centralised registration.

De novo adjudication must independently reconcile relevant facts, figures and evidence, verify sales-tax material, and consider the assessee's explanation as required by remand directions. Mechanical adoption of findings from an earlier order that was set aside, without addressing evidence, submissions or cited authorities, fails to show application of mind. Quasi-judicial determinations affecting rights must provide cogent reasons and comply with natural justice and the remand mandate. The de novo order was therefore unsustainable and required fresh adjudication in accordance with the earlier directions.

Works-contract services supplied to a Government authority for road construction and river-ghat protection qualified for service-tax exemption. Repair services supplied to a subsidiary company did not qualify because it was not established as a governmental authority; reverse-charge payment by the recipient covered only its share, leaving the provider liable for the balance. Failure to register, file returns and timely pay tax attracts civil penalties without proof of mens rea. Interest follows the surviving tax liability; the tax-linked penalty was correspondingly reduced, while registration and return-default penalties remained operative.

Service-tax demand based solely on PAN-level 26AS receipts cannot be sustained against one registration where the same receipts have been wholly attributed to multiple registrations under the same PAN. Independent processing of identical differential receipts against three registrations, coupled with prior dropping of equivalent demands in two matters, undermines the proposed demand. Absent correlation between the receipts and activities from the registered premises, or verification that they represented undeclared taxable services, the tax demand, consequential interest and penalties are unsustainable.

Pre-1 July 2012 service-tax liability required identification of the applicable specified taxable service; demands without an established taxable category do not survive. From 1 July 2012, consideration for activities performed by one person for another is taxable, subject to the normal limitation period. Revenue neutrality arising from available reverse-charge credit negates mala fide intent and prevents use of the extended limitation period. Payments to foreign service providers constitute consideration rather than reimbursable expenses where received services are established. Cum-tax valuation is unavailable where service tax is payable by the recipient under reverse charge. Penalties for suppression and return-related contraventions do not survive where mala fide intent is absent and returns were filed.

Separately priced ocean freight, port charges and handling services retain their distinct tax classifications and cannot be aggregated as Cargo Handling Service merely because they support coal movement. Port-area services fall within the separate port-service classification, while pre-01.09.2009 coastal ocean carriage under principal-to-principal charter arrangements was not Business Auxiliary Service; the specific waterways levy applied only from that date. Extended limitation for waterways tax is unavailable where transactions were disclosed, earlier notices covered substantially the same activities, the dispute concerns classification, and reverse-charge credit created revenue neutrality. Consequently, the associated tax demands, interest and penalties fail.

Notification-based service-tax exemption requires the claimant to establish eligibility with supporting contractual evidence. Where work orders, agreements and tender documents are not produced to correlate receipts with allegedly exempt handling and transportation services, the exemption claim remains unsubstantiated. Unanswered assertions concerning contractual rates and taxes further weaken the challenge to the demand. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily warrant interference in those circumstances, particularly where a statutory appellate remedy is available; the taxpayer may pursue that remedy in accordance with law.

Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires expeditious adjudication in extended-period matters. Its qualification, "where it is possible to do so", permits only a reasonable and legally justifiable departure from the prescribed timeframe; it does not allow indefinite delay. An unexplained, inordinate delay in issuing an adjudication order is arbitrary and violates this requirement. Although an appellate remedy ordinarily limits writ intervention, writ jurisdiction remains available where delayed adjudication raises a foundational legal issue and offends Article 14.

Service-tax treatment of construction services for Traffic and Transit Management Centers concerns whether a transport-terminal exclusion applies under the taxable-service definition. Relevant considerations include whether construction of bus terminals is recognised as a separate activity and whether the extended period of limitation may be invoked. Transport-terminal classification, recognition of the relevant construction activity, and limitation requirements govern the service-tax analysis.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires the authorised officer to record written reasons to believe, based on material in possession, that proceeds of crime exist and require protection from dealings that could frustrate confiscation. Charge-sheet and investigation material alleging fraudulent recognition-related conduct, record manipulation, unlawful student collections and grant-fund misappropriation established the required nexus. Buildings and infrastructure constructed using Government grants, capitation fees, admission fees and unrefunded caution deposits derived from scheduled offences may be attached as the value of proceeds of crime. Commercial failure of the institution does not negate money laundering where criminally derived property is projected as untainted.

Proceeds-of-crime classification requires a demonstrated nexus between property or funds and the alleged scheduled offence. A coal-block allocation letter, without revenue from mining or evidence connecting share application money to criminal activity, cannot establish that nexus. Investment statements attributing funding to business prospects did not show inducement through the allocation, while the alternative allegation that investors were entities controlled by the directors undermined the theory of deceptive investment. In the absence of a predicate offence or fraud evidence concerning the investment flow, the share application money and attached properties were not shown to be proceeds of crime; attachment confirmation was unsustainable.

Section 6(5)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits a one- or two-member Adjudicating Authority bench, including a single Finance Member, to determine attachment proceedings under Section 8. Statutory appeals on facts and law provide the applicable adjudicatory safeguard. A provisional attachment requires recorded reasons to believe that non-attachment may frustrate proceedings; challenges to the factual basis of that satisfaction are generally to be pursued through the statutory appellate process rather than writ review. The Adjudicating Authority must independently assess whether property represents proceeds of crime. Property acquired before registration of the predicate offence may be attached if directly or indirectly linked to proceeds of crime.

Bail in alleged money-laundering proceedings was considered appropriate where the accused had remained in custody for more than one and a half years and the nature of the charge did not require continued incarceration. Release was made subject to terms and conditions fixed by the Trial Court.

An arbitration clause does not displace the statutory insolvency remedy where the requirements of debt and default are met. A settlement claim arising from disputes over the supply of raw cotton remains operational debt, and the creditor need not have directly supplied goods or services to qualify as an operational creditor. An alleged contractual damages claim bars a Section 9 application only if it constitutes a genuine, pre-existing dispute supported by material. A belated and unpursued damages assertion raised in response to a demand notice does not meet that standard. Insolvency resolution therefore remains available for settled operational debt connected with the supply of goods.

Financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires reliable material showing an independent, legally enforceable liability of the corporate debtor. Where payment was made to another entity, no banking trail linked funds to the corporate debtor, and ledger and balance-sheet entries reflected reversible internal adjustments among commonly managed entities, the claim does not establish such debt. A memorandum contemplating further payment and a definitive agreement does not by itself create a concluded commercial arrangement. The resolution professional must verify and update claims, and may revisit provisional admission during verification without adjudicating disputed rights. Rejection of the claim is justified where no independent financial debt is proved.

Correction of the record was confined to entering counsel's appearance for Respondent No. 2. Reliance on a cited decision concerning photocopies was not material because the earlier dismissal rested on an undisputed default and the default record filed with the Information Utility under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appearance entry was directed to be corrected, while the request for further speaking-to-the-minutes changes was disposed of without costs.

Insolvency moratorium under the IBC bars recovery-oriented provident fund inquiries against a corporate debtor during CIRP, even where statutory dues may otherwise be assessed. Once a provident fund claim has been dealt with under an approved and unchallenged resolution plan, pre-approval liabilities not preserved by that plan are extinguished and cannot be reassessed or recovered. Following a resolution plan involving a change in management or control, statutory immunity protects the restructured corporate debtor and its assets from recovery, damages, interest and prosecution relating to pre-CIRP defaults attributable to the former management. Consequently, assessed provident fund liabilities and coercive measures for such defaults cannot be enforced against the restructured entity.

Under the applicable F&O regulatory framework, a professional clearing member's constituent was the trading member, and client-margin restrictions did not require the clearing member to verify each trading member client's debit or credit position before collateral liquidation. Real-time client-level reporting and segregation were introduced only later. Stock exchange, clearing corporation and committee powers did not extend to monetary restitution through restoration or value-blocking of lawfully liquidated securities; disgorgement authority lay separately with SEBI. Clients whose losses arose from a trading member's default or unauthorised assured-return arrangements could not recover from the clearing member absent privity or breach of a regulatory duty. Remedies remained against the relevant trading member, subject to lawful exceptions.