FCRA renewal refusals must disclose intelligible reasons where non-renewal adversely affects the applicant's rights; a bare reference to statutory provisions is insufficient. Confidential security-agency material may justify non-disclosure only on cogent material showing a genuine national-security necessity, rather than by automatic reliance on secrecy. Alleged financial support for peaceful Vizhinjam Port protests does not establish diversion of foreign contribution, an undesirable purpose, or prejudice to public interest without evidence linking funds or participation to unlawful conduct. Peaceful dissent, assembly and association remain constitutionally protected, and administrative disapproval of protest cannot alone support non-renewal.

Judicial review of government tender decisions is confined to the legality, fairness and rationality of the decision-making process, not a re-evaluation of bids or substitution of the tendering authority's commercial assessment. Intervention arises only where the process is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, discriminatory, inconsistent with tender conditions, or harmful to public interest. A bidder that participated without seeking clarification on GST cannot revise its bid after rejection through a later offer at a different rate. In the absence of unequal treatment, favouritism, mala fides or procedural irregularity, rejection of the quotation and award of the catering contract did not warrant interference. Outstanding dues under an earlier contract were independent of the fresh tender's validity.

Vicarious criminal liability for corporate cheque dishonour applies only to persons responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, or where consent, connivance, negligence, or an independent role is specifically pleaded. Uncontroverted corporate records showing that an accused never served as director or officer, coupled with no pleaded operational connection to cheque issuance or dishonour, support quashing proceedings under inherent criminal jurisdiction as an abuse of process. Corporate complaints seeking to proceed against responsible officers must prospectively verify the company's identity and each proposed accused's office through MCA master-data CIN and certified Form DIR-12. Exceptions require a due-diligence affirmation and recorded reasons before cognizance.

Guidelines dated 1 February 1994 govern valuation assignments undertaken in 2004. Prior sanction is required for payment of fees above the prescribed ceiling, rather than for appointment of the valuer, and separate valuation exercises may attract separate fee ceilings. Accepted and non-deficient work may receive post facto sanction for reasonable fees exceeding those ceilings. Exceptional delay in payment may justify interest as compensation for the time value of earned fees, but excludes overlapping inflation-linked enhancement for the same period. Recovery is confined to available proceeding funds or the appropriate liquidation process; neither public funds nor third-party assets are liable absent proof overcoming separate corporate personality. Completion of receiver functions and absence of suit funds permit discharge of the Court Receiver and closure of the suit account.

Admission of signatures on a cheque and money receipt triggers presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. A challenge to the payee's financial capacity, or an alleged breach of loan-acceptance restrictions under the Income-tax Act, does not rebut those presumptions without cogent and reliable evidence. Where cheque-dishonour proceedings are conducted as a summons trial rather than a summary trial, a successor Magistrate's reliance on evidence recorded by a predecessor does not itself establish prejudice or procedural illegality. Revisional intervention requires perversity, material illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.

Mandatory inquiry before issuing process against an accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction, statutory presumptions arising from admitted cheque execution, and the scope of inherent jurisdiction to quash a cheque-dishonour complaint before trial are central issues. Admitted execution of a cheque may trigger a rebuttable presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The discussion also concerns whether non-compliance with inquiry requirements before process justifies pre-trial quashing while preserving substantive contentions for trial.

Section 84A of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, retrospectively introduced to exclude time spent in appellate proceedings when calculating limitation, is void for want of State legislative competence. After the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 came into force and the relevant State legislative fields were deleted, the State Legislature lacked competence to amend the Gujarat VAT law from 1 July 2017. The earlier invalidation of the amendment was confirmed, with the challenge succeeding in favour of the assessee.

Excise duty on waste and scrap generated during job work rests with the job worker where the job worker manufactures, retains and sells the scrap. The Cenvat and Central Excise framework does not require the principal manufacturer to receive such scrap back or pay duty merely because it arose from materials supplied for processing. Accordingly, duty liability for scrap retained at the job worker's premises cannot be imposed on the principal manufacturer.

CENVAT credit is admissible for the 1% or 2% additional duty of customs paid on imported steam coal. Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules permits credit of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. Restrictions in the proviso to Rule 3(1)(i) apply only to excise duty paid under specified Central Excise exemption notifications, not to additional customs duty. Where the relevant Customs exemption notification does not bar credit, Central Excise notification conditions cannot be imported into it. This approach follows consistent coordinate-bench treatment and supports certainty in applying credit rules.

Service-tax demands require identification and classification of the taxable service and determination of its taxable value under the Finance Act, 1994. Discrepancies between financial statements, income-tax records and ST-3 returns cannot alone establish taxable consideration without verification against agreements, invoices, work orders and contemporaneous records. Extended limitation requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention intended to evade tax; disclosed records and return-filing discrepancies do not by themselves prove suppression. Only separately identifiable admitted tax liability remains subject to statutory interest, while unsubstantiated demands and suppression-based penalties fail.

Service tax on works contracts applies only to the service component; the value of goods transferred, including goods on which VAT or sales tax has been paid, must be excluded under Rule 2A, as transfers of title and deemed sales are outside the definition of service. Specified construction and lift-irrigation works provided to a governmental authority may qualify for exemption where they advance municipal functions under Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule. Extended limitation under Section 73 requires wilful fraud, collusion, misstatement or suppression intended to evade tax, and cannot rest on disclosed records or bona fide exemption claims.

Revenue must maintain consistent positions where materially identical service-tax disputes involve the same show-cause notice basis, demand period, computation and Tribunal reasoning. Challenging a Tribunal ruling for one assessee after accepting the identical ruling for a similarly situated assessee is inconsistent with fairness and equality in revenue administration. Extended limitation for a service-tax demand requires specific allegations and proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, coupled with intent to evade duty. Without proof of that prescribed conduct, the extended period is unavailable and a delayed demand is time-barred.

Section 5(1)(b) permits provisional attachment only where there is a reasonable apprehension that the person concerned may deal with or alienate property to frustrate confiscation. A pre-existing interim judicial restraint against creating third-party rights, together with admitted insolvency proceedings concerning the secured debt, restricted dealings in the mortgaged property. These circumstances removed any credible risk of alienation or transfer capable of frustrating confiscation, rendering the statutory condition for provisional attachment unmet and the attachment and its confirmation unsustainable.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires material establishing a likelihood that proceeds of crime will be concealed, transferred or otherwise dealt with to frustrate confiscation. Mortgages created in favour of secured creditors before attachment, coupled with an existing restraint on third-party rights and no auction, execution, attachment or sale process, did not establish that risk. Pending insolvency proceedings served to ensure an orderly resolution of competing rights. Accordingly, the statutory condition for confirming the provisional attachment was not met, and the properties remained subject to the final outcome of the insolvency proceedings.

The first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act exempts every woman accused from the statutory twin conditions for bail, without classification by education, status, or profession. The exemption is discretionary and does not create an automatic right to bail. Regular bail remains subject to ordinary considerations, including the prima facie case, gravity of allegations, attributed role, flight risk, and potential interference with witnesses or evidence. The dispensation is linked to substantive equality and the constitutional protection for women under Article 15(3). Prolonged custody, lack of need for further interrogation, delayed trial, and absence of tangible interference risks may support exercise of the discretion.

Section 94 permits a personal guarantor in default to initiate a personal insolvency resolution process and propose a repayment plan, while Section 96 grants an interim moratorium. These provisions require a genuine effort to resolve insolvency and cannot be used to obstruct a financial creditor's lawful security enforcement. Withdrawal of an earlier application after enjoying the interim moratorium, followed by a fresh application immediately after issuance of a possession notice, without any intervening repayment effort, demonstrated an intent to stall recovery proceedings. The personal guarantor's application was therefore rejected as an abuse of the insolvency process and interim moratorium.

Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, read with Regulation 30A, ordinarily requires an initiating applicant to seek CIRP withdrawal in Form FA, with prescribed creditor approval and security for CIRP costs. Where creditor claims have been settled or agreed to be settled, but CIRP costs remain uncrystallised and the required bank guarantee cannot be furnished, those formalities may create a procedural stalemate. In exceptional circumstances, continuation of CIRP may be unwarranted where no resolution plan is available and the Resolution Professional's entitlement to CIRP costs remains protected through pending adjudication and a binding undertaking to pay the determined costs.

Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes disqualifications for appointment or reappointment as a director but does not authorise deactivation of a Director Identification Number (DIN). DIN deactivation is governed by Rule 11 of the Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014, requiring compliance with that rule. Recording a DIN as disqualified under Section 164(2)(b) without establishing Rule 11 compliance or giving the affected director an opportunity of hearing breaches principles of natural justice. An uncommunicated and unpublished internal assertion of disqualification cannot support a contrary website status. The website notice showing the DIN as disqualified was therefore quashed.

Section 149 of the Customs Act must be read harmoniously with the India-Japan CEPA origin rules when an importer seeks preferential duty after clearance. Appendix-A to Annexure-2 permits an importer lacking a Certificate of Origin at importation to seek refund of excess duty by later producing a certificate issued under the prescribed procedure. A valid retrospectively issued Certificate of Origin supports amendment and reassessment of Bills of Entry for preferential tariff treatment under Notification No. 34/2018-Customs. The certificate must therefore be considered by the adjudicating authority in reassessing the duty claim.

Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant imported for offshore and onshore petroleum operations qualified for customs exemption under Serial No. 404 read with Serial No. 4 of List 33 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs during the pre-amendment period. Eligibility required the goods to fall within the tariff coverage in the main notification and meet prescribed conditions; List 33's reference to tariff heading 8430 did not independently restrict the wider description of specialised petroleum-service equipment. End-use certification supported this interpretation. A later specific entry for the plant operated prospectively and did not displace coverage under the existing general entry. The ambiguity rule favouring Revenue did not apply because the exemption provision was unambiguous.