GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatches may trigger scrutiny and verification of input tax credit, but cannot alone establish wrongful availment. Final liability requires examination of reconciliation, invoices, books, electronic credit ledger, proof of receipt, and supplier-related material. Where denial relies on supplier non-payment under Section 16(2)(c), such default must be verified rather than presumed from non-reflection in GSTR-2A. A show-cause notice limits the grounds and tax heads of adjudication, while competing computations must be reconciled through a reasoned speaking order.

A sole proprietary concern has no legal identity separate from its proprietor; its trade name does not make it a distinct juristic person. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies where the drawer is a company, firm or association of individuals and vicarious liability is imposed on persons responsible for that separate entity's business. Where a cheque is issued from a proprietorship account, prosecuting the proprietor directly is sufficient and does not require separate arraignment of the proprietary concern. Allegations establishing the elements of cheque dishonour under Section 138 support maintainability, with no basis for quashing proceedings.

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits an appellate court to order a pre-deposit pending an appeal by the drawer convicted under Section 138. Its discretionary pre-deposit requirement does not extend to a company director who neither signed nor drew the cheque. Where another accused signed the cheque for the company and no specific complaint allegations directly implicated the director, the director falls outside the statutory expression "drawer". Consequently, a Section 148 pre-deposit condition cannot be imposed on that non-signatory director.

Rule 69(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 bars payment of gratuity while either departmental or judicial proceedings remain pending. The disjunctive term "or" requires withholding gratuity until both categories of proceedings are concluded; completion or exoneration in departmental proceedings does not permit release while judicial proceedings continue. Departmental and criminal proceedings have distinct purposes and standards of proof, so the outcome of one does not control the other. Rule 9(1) applies only after a finding of guilt and does not authorise gratuity payment during pending judicial proceedings. Gratuity becomes payable only after judicial proceedings conclude and final orders issue.

Penalty under Section 53(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act applies only where the person cannot show sufficient cause for the transit-related contravention. Whether sufficient cause exists depends on the facts. Inter-State movement of goods from Gujarat to Pondicherry, with temporary unloading explained as transshipment, does not attract the provision where no material establishes an intention to evade Karnataka tax. On those conditions, penalty for non-compliance with transit requirements is not leviable.

Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of concurrent factual findings on turnover discrepancies and estimation merely because another view of the evidence is possible. Reassessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was sustained where discrepancies between purchase turnover in books and monthly returns were supported by material, and disclosure in Form VAT-240 with an explanation of inadvertent omission did not satisfactorily explain the omissions. Interference requires perversity, absence of supporting material, or an error of law. Penalty and interest consequential to the sustained reassessment also remained valid because no independent legal error was established. No substantial question of law arose.

Refund of an ad hoc amount deposited as security under protest is sought together with interest at 6% or another appropriate rate. The writ petition was closed and disposed of, while preserving liberty to seek relief concerning interest and the pending assessment and reassessment proceedings. The substantive issues therefore concern recovery of a protested security deposit, entitlement to interest, and the continuing effect of unresolved assessment and reassessment proceedings.

Rechargeable lanterns, emergency lamps and study lamps with inbuilt rechargeable batteries are classifiable as portable electric lamps under Tariff Heading 8513 1090, rather than lighting fittings under Heading 9405 2010, where AC mains connection only recharges the battery. Disclosure of reclassification in departmental correspondence and monthly returns prevents a finding of suppression in an interpretative classification dispute; consequently, the extended limitation period cannot support demand, interest or penalty before February 2011. Differential duty and consequential interest remain payable after February 2011 because the revised classification applies, except demand already set aside for May to September 2012. Penalties are unsustainable absent suppression.

Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that a person dealt with goods while knowing that they were liable to confiscation. Distributors cannot be penalised for a manufacturer's alleged excise-duty default without evidence of their ownership or control of the manufacturer, or knowledge of the duty non-payment and consequent confiscability of the goods. Distributors and subsequent purchasers have no legal duty to verify whether the manufacturer properly paid central excise duty, as primary duty liability rests with the manufacturer. Penalties imposed on the distributors were therefore unsustainable.

Statutory interest on a service-tax refund accrues under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, as applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, when the refundable amount remains unpaid for three months after receipt of the original Section 11B refund application. The deeming provision for refunds granted through an appellate or court order does not defer the start of interest. A later communication that merely continues or reminds the authorities of the original claim is not a fresh refund application. Interest was therefore payable from expiry of three months after the original application until actual refund.

Service tax paid by mistake of law on potable-water pipeline work for a public-welfare project lacks the character of duty, so restrictive refund limitations do not govern restitution. Interest under Section 11BB accrues automatically three months after the original refund application; later implementation documents do not create a fresh claim. Rule 41 permits procedural directions needed to implement a final Tribunal order, and such directions are not appealable under Section 35G. Where money was withheld after a mistaken payment rather than a duty refund, the statutory notified rate need not cap compensatory interest, supporting interest at 9% for prolonged withholding.

Language-translation services do not fall within Business Support Services merely because they are supplied to organisational clients. The residual expression "other transaction processing" in section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 must be interpreted in the context of the specifically listed business-support activities. Translating documents between languages is an independent service, rather than outsourced business support or transaction processing. Consequently, such services are not liable to service tax under the Business Support Services category.

Cenvat credit on construction-related input services is admissible where a commercial complex is constructed for subsequent taxable renting of immovable property. Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 covers services used by an output service provider, and the construction services have a sufficient nexus with the taxable renting service generated from the completed premises. The building's status as immovable property does not sever that nexus, and a one-to-one correlation between each input service and the output service is unnecessary. Consequently, denial and recovery of such credit, with related interest and penalties, are unsustainable.

Extended limitation for service-tax demands requires suppression of material facts. Service-tax registration, payment of tax on commission receipts, filing of ST-3 returns, and recording reimbursement particulars in profit and loss accounts indicate disclosure rather than suppression. Pending litigation over the taxability of reimbursements further negates a basis for alleging deliberate non-disclosure. Consequently, invoking the extended period is unsustainable where the relevant reimbursement details were available from statutory returns and accounts, rendering the demand time-barred.

Free home delivery of ready-to-eat food is treated as outdoor catering for the period before July 2012 and as a declared service thereafter, because delivery to the customer's requested location and time contains a significant service element. Service tax liability therefore applies within the normal limitation period. Extended limitation and consequential penalty do not apply where the taxpayer was registered, filed statutory returns, paid service tax, and the relevant facts emerged from maintained records, absent evidence of deliberate suppression intended to evade tax.

NSDC-approved training-partner exemption under paragraph 9A(iv) requires the service provider itself to be an NSDC-approved training partner providing services in relation to specified programmes; an authorised learning centre serving such a partner, without direct NSDC approval or tripartite authorisation, does not qualify. Education forming part of a university degree curriculum leading to a legally recognised qualification remains exempt under Section 66D(l)(ii) even when delivered through distance learning by a non-university provider. Extended limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade; absent these elements, only non-exempt skill-development services within the normal limitation period remain taxable.

Cum-tax treatment applies where service tax was unpaid and no evidence shows that it was separately recovered from service recipients. Consideration for taxable services must then be treated as inclusive of tax, requiring recomputation of tax liability, interest and mandatory penalty on a cum-tax basis. For 2017-18, contractual amounts may form the basis of a best-judgment service-tax determination where the assessee has not furnished income-tax returns, balance sheets or alternative figures showing services rendered and consideration received. That contractual-value basis remains valid, but the resulting liability must be recalculated after extending cum-tax benefit.

Extended limitation and penalties require evidence of conscious, deliberate suppression or misstatement intended to evade service tax. A governmental lessor's bona fide understanding of taxability, without positive evidence of mala fide intent, does not justify extended-period demands or penal action; related extended-period demands and penalties are consequently unsustainable. Vacant land was excluded from taxable renting of immovable property before 1 July 2010, but leasing or licensing vacant land for construction of business or commercial structures became taxable thereafter. A one-time lease premium or salami constitutes consideration for leasing immovable property and forms part of the taxable value, unlike recurring rent only.

Discretionary writ relief under Article 226 may be declined where a litigant relies on altered or unreliable material to explain delay in filing a statutory appeal. An undated medical certificate contained an insertion in its neat copy that was absent from the original, indicating an attempt to mislead the Court. The clean-hands requirement governs invocation of writ jurisdiction, and rejection of the delayed statutory appeal was therefore not disturbed.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may be confirmed on prima facie material showing a person's involvement in receiving, handling, layering or concealing proceeds of crime; final criminal liability remains for trial. An unsubstantiated loan explanation, later inclusion in the ECIR, absence of an initial direct money trail, or reliance partly on a co-accused's statement does not defeat attachment where independent electronic, documentary and circumstantial material supports the laundering nexus. Where directly derived proceeds are unavailable, untraceable, laundered or held outside India, property of equivalent value may be attached, including property acquired before the criminal activity.