Restoration of an appeal dismissed for failure to remove defects, including non-compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements, was sought after an unexplained delay of about five years. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and order, and dismissed the special leave petition.

Rule 5 refunds of accumulated CENVAT credit for exported output services cannot be denied by reassessing the nexus between input services and output services where the availed credit has not been challenged through statutory recovery proceedings under Rule 14 read with the Finance Act. The refund enquiry is confined to compliance with the prescribed conditions and formula. Eligibility under the Rule 5 formula requires a proper factual determination, including consideration of prior findings on identical facts. Invoices, foreign inward remittance certificates and refund calculations must be considered before deciding the remaining documentary and computational requirements.

Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules prescribes the mechanism and formula for refunding accumulated credit attributable to exported output services. Where the original availment of CENVAT credit has not been challenged through a show-cause notice or under Rule 14, its admissibility, including alleged lack of nexus between input and output services or inadequate documentation, cannot be re-examined during Rule 5 refund proceedings. Refund may therefore not be denied on nexus or documentation grounds where no non-compliance with the Rule 5 formula or procedure is alleged.

Transfer of development rights that confers benefits arising from land constitutes transfer of immovable property and falls outside the definition of service; one-time premiums and transfer-related receipts under long-term development leases are therefore not subject to service tax. An urban planning body constituted under State law qualifies as a governmental authority for the relevant exemption framework. Construction of residential complexes remains taxable, but tax is confined to the amount after admissible abatement where land and superstructure values were included and CENVAT credit was reversed. Delayed-payment interest is penal rather than service consideration, and water supply in discharge of public functions is treated as supply of goods. Extended limitation applies to the surviving construction-tax liability where intentional evasion is established.

Healthcare revenue-sharing arrangements between hospitals and consultant doctors do not create a separately taxable Business Support Service where doctors provide professional care and the hospital manages and delivers healthcare services, facilities and follow-up care to patients. The hospital's retained share of patient fees is not consideration separately attributable to infrastructure or support supplied to the doctors. Taxing that share as Business Support Service before 1 July 2012, or as another taxable service thereafter, would conflict with the healthcare-services exemption available to clinical establishments. The retained amount is therefore not liable to service tax.

Pure-agent exclusion of reimbursed expenses from taxable service value requires contractual agreements or other documentary evidence linking the amounts claimed to expenses incurred for clients. The claimant bears the initial burden of proving the factual basis for the exclusion. Where reimbursement is established on evidence, service tax is not chargeable on those reimbursed expenses. The claim requires fresh consideration by the original authority after allowing production of the requisite evidence.

Excess service tax paid by mistake where no taxable liability existed is characterised as a deposit rather than duty or tax lawfully leviable. Consequently, the one-year limitation in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not govern its refund. Article 265 prevents retention of an amount collected without authority of law. Refund remains conditional on disproving unjust enrichment: invoices and a Superintendent's certificate may establish that the amount was not recovered from service recipients. Where the incidence was not passed on, the excess payment is refundable.

Principal-to-principal purchase and resale of cargo space in international freight forwarding is an independent commercial activity. The margin between buy and sell freight rates is trading profit, not consideration for Customs House Agent service, unless it is shown to relate to an identifiable agency service; ancillary customs-clearance work does not change that character. Consequently, freight receipts of that nature fall outside the taxable value of Customs House Agent service. CENVAT credit on documentation charges requires Rule 9-compliant evidence that Service Tax was paid. Receipts without a Service Tax element cannot support credit, so the credit remains recoverable with interest; absence of intent to take irregular credit supports deletion of the related penalty.

Service tax paid under reverse charge on exempt legal services, where the taxable value remains below the threshold, is treated as a deposit rather than tax legally due. An advance received for proposed services but recovered after contract termination, without any service being rendered or consideration retained, does not form turnover for threshold-exemption purposes. Reversal of unutilised CENVAT credit removes the related objection to exemption. As no tax liability arises, the one-year refund limitation under Section 11B does not apply. Refund is also not barred by unjust enrichment where the tax incidence was not passed on and the claimant bore the burden.

Cost allocations and reimbursements among co-venturers under Joint Operating Agreements do not constitute consideration for Manpower Supply Service or Business Support Service where the operator performs its own obligations for the common petroleum enterprise. Proportionate recovery of manpower, administrative and operational expenditure through cash calls remains common-cost sharing, not an independent service transaction, absent a service provider-recipient or contractor-contractee relationship. The extended limitation period cannot apply where the arrangements and agreements were disclosed in statutory records and returns, and fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade Service Tax is not established. Interest and penalties consequently do not survive.

Leasing of dialysis equipment constitutes a taxable declared service where the arrangement does not transfer a legal and exclusive right to use identified goods to the lessee. Article 366(29A)(d) excludes transactions involving transfer of the right to use goods from service tax, whereas hiring or leasing without that transfer remains within Sections 65B(44)(a)(ii) and 66E(f) of the Finance Act, 1994. Owner control through operating specifications, approval requirements, maintenance and insurance obligations, inspection rights, and restrictions on removal prevents a deemed sale. VAT payment does not determine the transaction's character.

Leasing or renting land for business or commerce, including lease premium, salami and ground rent, constitutes a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. After introduction of the negative-list regime, such activity falls within the definition of service and is not excluded by the negative list. Statutory status does not exempt a development authority when it undertakes commercial activities for consideration. Protection for mandatory statutory functions applies only to compulsory statutory levies deposited into the Government treasury; lease-related receipts, sports-complex membership charges and subscription fees are consideration, not statutory levies. Sports-complex membership and subscription services are commercial and taxable.

Charges collected by an autonomous body for SOFTEX certification, no-objection certificates and export-related assistance constitute taxable Business Support Service when they directly facilitate recipients' business operations. Governmental authorisation or exclusive performance does not make an activity sovereign; exclusion applies only to compulsory statutory levies paid into the Government account, not charges retained by the service provider. Failure to declare such taxable receipts in service tax returns, despite registration and tax compliance for other services, supports invocation of the extended limitation period. Continued failure to assess, disclose and pay tax may also sustain penalty.

Construction of independent residential houses on separate plots does not fall within Construction of Complex Service unless every statutory element of a residential complex is established, including more than twelve units, common areas and specified common facilities. Roads and open spaces transferred to a municipal authority do not, without more, establish those requirements. Contracts involving construction together with supply or transfer of materials require classification under the works contract service framework; a simpliciter demand under Construction of Complex Service is unsustainable. Extended limitation and penalties do not apply where departmental knowledge and earlier service-tax refunds demonstrate a bona fide interpretive dispute rather than suppression, wilful misstatement or deliberate evasion.

Redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is addressed in determining amounts payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Although such fine may form part of recoverable arrears alongside excise duty, unpaid redemption fine does not make a declarant ineligible under the Scheme. A requirement to pay redemption fine before obtaining Scheme relief is inconsistent with the eligibility provisions. Redemption fine must therefore be excluded from the estimated payable amount, which requires recalculation without that component.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot justify unreasonably prolonged pre-trial detention when delay is not attributable to the accused and trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. Article 21 protects personal liberty and the right to speedy trial independently of statutory custody thresholds. Constitutional excessiveness requires a contextual assessment of the possible sentence, trial stage and expected duration, the accused's role, and concrete risks of absconding, witness interference, or evidence tampering. Where investigation is complete and the prosecution relies mainly on secured documentary evidence, continued custody may become disproportionate, warranting regular bail despite statutory bail restrictions.

Mortgage priority in liquidation depends on the chronology and subsistence of security interests. An earlier second pari-passu charge may move into first priority after discharge of an earlier first mortgage, leaving a later simple mortgage subordinate under the rule that later interests are subject to prior vested rights. Non-registration of a charge does not create or extinguish the underlying security or improve a subsequent mortgagee's priority where notice exists. Valid assignments do not permit enforcement outside liquidation where no timely election to realise security is made; the security interest then becomes part of the liquidation estate. The Liquidator may administer the property and retain its title deeds.

IBC appellate review of an approved resolution plan is confined to statutory non-compliance, demonstrated prejudice, and material irregularity, without substituting the Committee of Creditors' commercial assessment. Suspended directors may challenge plan approval as aggrieved persons, but failure to supply plan materials does not invalidate approval absent prejudice, particularly where confidentiality requirements were unmet. A practising chartered accountant is not disqualified as a resolution applicant solely by professional status. CIRP can be withdrawn only through the prescribed Section 12A process; an uncompleted settlement does not halt it. Government claims not included in an approved plan are addressed by the clean-slate principle, and statutory dues lack automatic secured-creditor parity.

Pre-amendment insolvency disciplinary procedure required a show cause notice to follow a completed investigation, consideration of its report, and a prima facie opinion based on sufficient cause. Where action rests on material outside the investigation, the independent material must be identified and supplied to the insolvency professional. Procedural review of disciplinary action focuses on fairness rather than reassessment of merits. Relevant defences, a reasonably possible interpretation of committee composition rules, the temporal applicability of liquidation-cost requirements, and evidence explaining auction delays must be considered. Findings cannot rely on meetings or allegations beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Non-disclosure of material and failure to consider relevant circumstances vitiate disciplinary action.

Approved resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bind members and can validly extinguish pre-CIRP equity shareholding and consequential membership rights. Section 59 of the Companies Act provides a limited rectification remedy for entries or omissions made without sufficient cause; it cannot collaterally reopen an approved plan or revive extinguished shares. Membership in a share-capital company remains inseparable from shareholding, while post-implementation annual returns reflect restructured capital rather than continuity of cancelled holdings. Administrative register provisions and procedural rules create no independent substantive entitlement. Claims for replacement shares, compensation, interest, or mental-suffering damages inconsistent with plan finality fall outside rectification jurisdiction; the Code's overriding effect prevails over inconsistent company-law remedies.