ISO 10002:2018 provides guidance for a customer-focused complaints-handling process covering the receipt, recording, assessment, investigation, resolution, closure and analysis of complaints. The process should be visible, accessible, responsive, objective, confidential and accountable, with defined responsibilities and clear communication. Complaint data should be used to identify recurring issues, root causes, process failures, training needs and improvement opportunities. Implementation includes reviewing existing practices, establishing policy and procedures, training personnel, monitoring performance and applying corrective and preventive action.

A cheque-dishonour complaint may be instituted by a co-operative society through its duly authorised Secretary where the society is the payee and the underlying transaction documents identify it as the complainant entity. The order of the Secretary's and society's names in the cause title does not determine whether the complaint was filed personally or for the society; at most, it is a technical defect that does not affect authority or maintainability. A pre-trial quashing request should not require disputed factual enquiry where a statutory presumption attaches to the cheque.

Article 32 jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary and ordinarily requires a demonstrated fundamental-right violation or exceptional circumstances warranting direct constitutional intervention. Assertions of absence from the country, lack of knowledge of transactions, or misuse of a bank account do not by themselves justify bypassing remedies before the High Court. Multiple FIRs may be clubbed only when they arise from the same incident or connected acts forming one transaction, assessed through sameness, unity of purpose, proximity, and continuity. Distinct complainants, victims, occasions, transactions, and consequences support separate investigations despite a similar modus operandi or funds reaching one account.

Penalty for alleged Form-38 manipulation was not sustainable where machinery parts imported for the assessee's repair and maintenance were supported by a tax invoice, goods receipt, Form-38 and Form-402, with no discrepancy in description, quantity or value. Use of a correction marker in the invoice-tax amount column did not establish tax evasion or an attempt to evade tax. The parts were not intended for resale, and no material showed that the assessee dealt in or sold such plant or machinery. Accordingly, the stated precedents supported exclusion of penalty under Section 54(1)(14).

CENVAT credit is available for services used to maintain a fly ash pond and to load, unload and transport fly ash from a power plant to a cement manufacturer's factory. Fly ash constitutes an input or raw material for cement manufacture, and the services facilitate its extraction, handling, procurement and inward movement. The definition of input service covers services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture, including procurement and inward transportation of inputs, without requiring that services be physically received within factory premises. Denial of credit solely because the services were performed outside the factory is therefore not sustainable.

Dilution of duty-paid styrene butadiene latex with water, addition of preservative, branding and repacking do not constitute manufacture unless the process creates a new article with a distinct name, character or use. Where the input and processed products retain the same chemical characteristics and comparable uses, no fresh central excise duty arises. The Department also cannot adopt a contrary position for later periods where unchallenged Tribunal decisions on the identical process and facts have attained finality, absent any material distinction or new evidence. Accordingly, the excise-duty proceedings were dropped and the prior settled position was maintained.

The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the CESTAT, Chandigarh orders in the central excise dispute and dismissed the civil appeals. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Service-tax exemptions for original works supplied to government bodies depend on the prescribed non-commercial-use, recipient and temporal conditions. Construction of market infrastructure under a government scheme requires evidence that its use is predominantly non-commercial; fee-based use without proof of statutory public-function status or treasury remittance does not establish that condition. Government-approved residential housing projects may qualify where work orders show supply to the relevant government housing authority. Entry 14A applies only to original-work contracts entered into before the specified cut-off date, making contract date determinative for school-construction exemption.

Service tax on the Government's grant of natural-resource rights is determined by the date the mining right was assigned, rather than by the date periodic royalty or related payments are made. Where a mining lease was executed before 1 April 2016, when grants of natural resources became taxable, the later levy does not apply to royalty, District Mineral Foundation and National Mineral Exploration Trust contributions, or user fees paid from 1 April 2016 to 30 June 2017 under that lease. On this analysis, the related tax demand, interest and penalties are unsustainable.

Service-tax liability under the positive-list regime required identification of the particular taxable service, its recipient and the consideration attributable to that service. A demand based only on discrepancies between income-tax returns, ST-3 returns and unbilled revenue, without specifying the allegedly rendered service or explaining why the amounts were taxable, lacked the necessary factual foundation. Registration under multiple service categories did not remove the requirement to identify the specific service forming the basis of liability. The show cause notice was therefore vague and incapable of sustaining the service-tax demand.

Construction of residential complex service was treated as taxable only from 1 July 2010; therefore, a service-tax demand for the earlier period was unsustainable. For the taxable period, documentary evidence showed that tax had been discharged on the relevant consideration. Extended limitation could not be invoked because the assessee was registered, filed ST-3 returns and paid tax on its receipts, circumstances that negated suppression. The demand, interest and penalty were consequently unsustainable, although voluntary payments made without protest were not refundable.

Indivisible turnkey ATM supply, installation and commissioning contracts executed before 1 June 2007 could not be split to levy service tax on a notional commissioning or installation component. Where the contract provided a single composite consideration and installation and commissioning were integral to delivering functional ATMs, the then-applicable charging and valuation provisions did not permit segregation of an embedded service element. A valuation exercise could not create a taxable event or support attribution of part of the consideration to taxable services. The subsequent works-contract entry and valuation mechanism confirmed the earlier framework did not cover such indivisible composite contracts.

Article 226 judicial review, read with Section 482 CrPC, may be invoked to examine the legality of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. An ECIR's character as an internal administrative record does not restrict constitutional review where it triggers coercive measures such as search, seizure, attachment, arrest or prosecution. The ECIR and resulting action form a single cause of action. Where the predicate offence has ceased following acceptance of a closure report, the continued legality of money-laundering action founded on that offence is open to judicial scrutiny. The preliminary objection to writ maintainability is rejected.

Provisional attachment orders are described as raising questions about the Enforcement Directorate's authority and jurisdiction to attach property, the requirement of a "reason to believe" that property constitutes proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, the effect of withdrawing concessions made by counsel, and the meaning of "proceeds of crime." The text further records that delay was condoned and the special leave petitions were dismissed without interference with the impugned judgments and orders.

Replacement of an interim resolution professional or resolution professional is governed by the Committee of Creditors' statutory voting process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Admission of homebuyers' claims affecting other creditors' voting shares, or admission of a claim below the amount asserted, does not alone demonstrate lack of integrity or justify removal. Where the professional entity's appointment and fees have Committee approval, and the relevant contract resolution remains unimplemented, creditor-group conflict does not displace majority class support for the professional. Tribunal intervention in replacement decisions is confined to exceptional circumstances, which were not established; challenges to a later appointment may be pursued before the appropriate forum.

Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code confers broad jurisdiction over questions connected with an insolvency resolution process. Recovery of electric vehicles owned by one corporate debtor and leased to another directly concerned preservation and control of the owner's assets. Suspended directors of the lessee corporate debtor had acknowledged responsibility to provide available information and assistance regarding those vehicles. A direction requiring their cooperation to identify and recover the leased assets was therefore stated to fall within the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction.

An unpaid security-service claim may be submitted in the company's ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before the NCLT. The service provider may join the insolvency proceedings and place its claim for unpaid security-service charges before that forum for consideration.

Pelargonium sidoides root extract with Maltodextrin is classifiable as an other vegetable extract under Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 19 where processing consists of hydro-ethanolic extraction, filtration and solvent removal without purification or high-refinement processes. Maltodextrin functions as an inert carrier and does not create a medicinal mixture, while bulk import and intended downstream pharmaceutical use do not determine classification. The product consequently falls within the relevant exemption entry under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 45/2025-Customs, subject to fulfilment of notification conditions and assessment-stage verification. The earlier classification premise of concentration was corrected as unsupported by the factual record.

Unauthenticated foreign customs intelligence and electronic printouts, without verification of origin certificates or independent corroboration, cannot establish misdeclaration of imported goods' country of origin; origin-based confiscation and related demands were therefore set aside. Goods already examined and cleared for home consumption could not later be confiscated for alleged phytosanitary non-compliance, while seized consignments lacking mandatory phytosanitary certificates remained confiscable, subject to a redemption option and production of the required certificate. Penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act could not be imposed because the show cause notices had not proposed them, and those penalties were set aside.

Duty demand against an importer using transferable DFIA licences cannot rest solely on alleged fraudulent procurement by the exporter where those allegations remain unestablished and the licences have not been cancelled. A bona fide purchaser of transferable licences cannot be treated as involved in a fraudulent import method merely because of alleged irregularities in the exporter's licence procurement. As no sustainable charge existed on the merits, invoking the extended limitation period was also unjustified. The demand was therefore unsustainable on both merits and limitation.