Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires a complainant to repay, with stipulated interest, any amount released during an appeal when the accused is acquitted. Although a repayment direction would ordinarily be made by the appellate court, a trial-court direction was not disturbed where the complainant had undertaken repayment before the appellate court, the amount was subsequently deposited under court directions, and repayment was not promptly made. The complainant therefore remained obliged to refund the released amount following acquittal.

Section 36AAA(1) of the Banking Regulation Act governs RBI-supervised supersession of boards of multi-State co-operative banks. The third proviso to Article 243ZL(1) preserves application of the banking regulatory regime to co-operative societies conducting banking business; consequently, the general six-month constitutional limit does not constrain supersession under Section 36AAA(1). Supersession may be extended, including beyond the elected tenure of the erstwhile board, within the aggregate statutory ceiling of five years. The Administrator must convene a general meeting to elect new directors before expiry of the supersession period specified by the RBI. Consultation with a State Government is not required for a multi-State co-operative bank.

Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act permits a valuation enquiry where there is reason to believe that market value or consideration has not been truly stated. Its text does not expressly require wilful undervaluation or fraudulent intent to evade stamp duty. Treating fraudulent intent as an independent jurisdictional condition may conflict with literal construction of a taxing statute and restrict valuation-based scrutiny. However, binding three-Judge Bench precedent had imposed that requirement. The conflict over the correctness of that precedent was referred to a larger Bench, without a final determination of stamp-duty liability or the notice's validity.

Appellate orders that reopen the predominant assessment issue for fresh consideration, while allowing supporting evidence on a claimed transit-sale exemption, may in substance set aside the assessment and require a fresh assessment under the third proviso to Section 58(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Such an order bars a further appeal to the Tribunal. Claims, evidence and documents must instead be pursued before the Assessing Officer, who must complete the fresh assessment independently and without prejudice from prior observations.

Refund of excess tax or penalty under the Bihar Value Added Tax framework must be sought through the prescribed Form A-VIII procedure. A change in the designation of the competent refund officer does not by itself invalidate an application filed with the corresponding predecessor authority; the application may be forwarded to the redesignated officer. Delayed-refund interest does not arise automatically after an appellate or Tribunal order. Defects in the prescribed application must be cured, and delay attributable to the claimant is excluded. Interest becomes payable only where a compliant application is received and the authority fails to make the refund within ten days.

Approval of a clean-slate resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds statutory authorities and settles or extinguishes pre-resolution statutory claims not preserved in the plan. Tax assessment and recovery proceedings for dues addressed under an approved plan cannot continue, because the plan supersedes enforcement of those earlier liabilities. A statutory pre-deposit made for a tax appeal forms part of the disputed demand; where the plan fully settles departmental dues, retention of that deposit beyond the plan allocation is impermissible. The related pre-deposit must therefore be released with applicable interest.

CST, VAT and sales tax matters form the subject of multiple special leave petitions brought against High Court orders. The proceedings concern tax-related determinations involving a private company and State respondents and invoke the special leave petition mechanism for review by the Supreme Court. No underlying statutory provision or discrete substantive tax issue is identified.

Statutory interest on delayed excise-duty refunds arises automatically once three months elapse after receipt of a valid refund application. Duty paid under protest, together with contemporaneous electronic refund claims accepted without objection, is treated as protected protest payment rather than voluntary payment. Electronic claims constitute the relevant applications for computing interest, while a later physical Form R filing is only an administrative reiteration. The relevant-date rule governing refund-claim limitation does not defer interest, and limitation, delay or laches does not defeat a request invoking the statutory interest obligation. Interest runs until refund sanction, subject to verification of claim-receipt dates and calculation.

CENVAT credit on imported capital goods is available only to the manufacturer or service provider legally entitled to claim it under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Where a separate corporate entity imports and owns the goods, pays CVD and holds the Bills of Entry, another entity cannot claim that credit merely because of common shareholding, captive consumption, economic integration or revenue neutrality. Credit availed without statutory authority is recoverable under Rule 14 read with Section 11A, with applicable interest. Equal penalty may apply under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC where the relevant facts support it. No statutory mechanism permits cross-entity transfer of such credit.

Mutatis mutandis incorporation of customs-notification conditions into the International Competitive Bidding excise exemption extends only to conditions capable of operating for domestic clearances. Import-specific procedural requirements cannot be imposed mechanically on indigenous manufacturers where the eligible project, actual end use and Project Authority Certificate are undisputed; substantive exemption eligibility therefore remains intact. A duty demand founded solely on exemption denial cannot survive, and payment under protest does not validate it. Interest requires a legally recoverable principal duty liability. Penalties are not attracted where clearances followed prior intimation and certificate production, with no suppression or clandestine removal and only an interpretational dispute.

Reimbursable expenses for the pre-amendment period were excluded from taxable value, and a demand cannot rest solely on differences between accrual-based financial-statement turnover and receipt-based ST-3 turnover without material proving taxable receipts. CENVAT credit computations require reconciliation of opening balances, tax paid on imported services and correct return figures; any surviving excess-credit demand requires fresh verification and is confined to the normal limitation period. Credit is available for business-related professional, housekeeping, security, maintenance and repair services, and for pre-1 April 2011 employee insurance and health check-ups; group-booking expenditure requires evidence of business promotion. Bona fide SEZ-exemption belief, followed by pre-notice payment of tax and interest, constitutes reasonable cause against penalty. Regular filings and departmental audit negate extended limitation and associated penalties.

Construction of residential complexes undertaken by a builder or developer under agreements to sell was treated as self-service before transfer of completed property and was not liable to service tax before 1 July 2010. This position applied whether the arrangement involved a standalone service or a composite works contract. The Explanation extending service-tax coverage to such construction operated prospectively from 1 July 2010. Consequently, residential-complex construction performed before that date remained outside the taxable net.

Recovery and enforcement services used by an NBFC to collect defaulted loan instalments are integral to the continuing lending activity and qualify as input services for CENVAT credit under the inclusive definition covering services related to financing and security. Credit on commission paid to recovery or collection agents is therefore treated as admissible. Extended limitation requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade; omitted service-wise return details do not establish concealment where credit was disclosed and no such break-up was prescribed. In an interpretational dispute, the extended-period demand is time-barred. Penalties require inadmissible credit and culpable suppression, and do not survive where those elements are absent.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely because service-provider invoices omit the Service Tax registration number without considering relevant coordinate Tribunal decisions on the effect of that omission. Reasoned adjudication requires the decision-maker to address applicable precedents or record a factual basis for distinguishing them before sustaining denial. The CENVAT-credit entitlement therefore requires fresh adjudication after due consideration of the relevant Tribunal decisions.

Pre-existing disputes concerning an alleged operational debt prevent initiation of CIRP under Section 9 where they arose before the Section 8 demand notice. A legal notice denying the underlying purchase orders and supplies, allegations of fraudulent transactions, related complaints, and Information Utility records identifying the debt as disputed may demonstrate a genuine dispute. Where objections concern the genuineness of purchase orders, invoices, deliveries and payments, and require detailed factual determination in civil proceedings, they cannot be resolved through summary insolvency proceedings. The Section 9 application is consequently barred where the dispute is not spurious or illusory.

Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires insolvency or bankruptcy applications against personal guarantors to be filed before the NCLT where the corporate debtor's CIRP or liquidation is pending. The mandatory common forum is intended to ensure consistency and prevent parallel or conflicting proceedings. Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, read with Rule 2(7), permits the NCLT President to transfer proceedings between Benches, including across territorial locations, where necessary to implement that forum requirement. Personal-guarantor proceedings should therefore be pursued before the Bench handling the corporate debtor's CIRP or liquidation.

Order I Rule 10(2) permits impleadment of suspended directors where their rights are affected by a challenged forensic audit report and their presence is necessary for complete adjudication. Corporate insolvency resolution process transfers company management to the resolution professional and suspends directors' powers; where the resolution professional declines to pursue the writ proceedings, the challenge may continue through the added directors. Amendments recording the company's admission to insolvency proceedings and the resolution professional's appointment are formal where they do not change the writ petition's nature. The company may be transposed as a respondent and represented through the resolution professional.

Disgorgement under SEBI's remedial powers was considered in relation to an exchange's due diligence in verifying vendor licences, the absence of fraud or inducement under the PFUTP framework, and equal, transparent access to co-location facilities. P2P connectivity outside the exchange trading path does not, by itself, confer a latency advantage. The issues also concerned the distinction between remedial disgorgement and punitive or debarment measures against senior management, including proportionality. Civil appeals were disposed of under a settlement, leaving all questions of law open.

Buyback escrow release and forfeiture operate separately from proceedings concerning fraudulent or unfair trade practices. Compliance with escrow-release conditions does not determine whether fraud occurred or confer immunity from an independent inquiry. Fraud requires reliable material assessed on the balance of probabilities from the cumulative circumstances, rather than conjecture or suspicion. Where allegations depend on historical trading data, unresolved inconsistencies between exchange records and investigation findings-including contradictory assessments of a corporate announcement's market impact-undermine the evidentiary basis for a fraud determination. The statutory appellate forum may obtain further evidence, examine relevant persons, and determine the fraud question using accurate trading data and corroborating circumstances.

Approval of a corporate debtor's resolution plan binds all creditors, including governmental authorities. Statutory dues arising before plan approval that are not included in the approved plan stand extinguished, preventing initiation or continuation of related customs-duty proceedings. As the binding effect of the plan precluded pursuit of excluded pre-approval claims, the pending customs-duty appeal proceedings could not continue after approval of the resolution plan.