In general, the decisions on tax laws of Supreme Court are binding all over India and the decisions of jurisdictional high courts are also binding on tax officials all over India, in respect of orders passed by other high court so long as there is no contrary decision from the respective jurisdictional high court. I am of the view that so far as decisions on GST law is concerned, as it is One Nation, One Tax, the decisions of GSTAT, HC as well as SC are all binding on all adjudication level as w... ... ...

When Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was finally omitted in October 2024, exporters exhaled - but only briefly. The Department took the position that the omission was prospective, leaving thousands of legacy demands, refund rejections and recovery notices alive for the pre-omission period. On 6th August 2026, in Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.[1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court brought that debate to a close: the omission of Rule 96(10) applies to all pending proceeding... ... ...

The tax officials had all along kept the taxpayers at receiving end by posting the SCN, OIO etc. under additional notices tab which was invisible. Innumerable orders were posted like that the taxpayer did not get any occasion to even reply the SCN. Orders were passed even without personal hearing and during the initial years, there were no legal remedy even. It is only after taxpayers started approaching jurisdictional high courts, the High Courts have ruled that communication should not only be... ... ...

When the Merits of Classification Arrive Disguised as Jurisdiction The High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction remains available where an order is passed without jurisdiction, natural justice is fundamentally violated, or the statutory remedy is ineffective. However, a taxpayer cannot bypass the appellate mechanism merely by describing every disputed factual or legal conclusion as a jurisdictional error. The substance of the controversy, rather than the language used in the petition, determin... ... ...

Who can arrest a person ? The Commissioner can authorise through an order, any officer to arrest a person who has committed specific offences given he has reasons to believe that such persons has committed the specified offences. Who can be arrested? Any person committing an offence as prescribed in section 132(1) clause (i) i.e. tax evasion or wrongly availed/utilised ITC or refund wrongly taken above Rs. 500 lakhs attracting imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and f... ... ...

When Corporate GST Liability Becomes Personal A company acts through individuals, but not every individual associated with it automatically becomes personally liable for the company's GST contraventions. This distinction becomes especially important where the Department alleges circular trading, issuance of invoices without supply or fraudulent availment of input tax credit. The taxable entity may be directly liable under GST law, but imposing an equivalent personal penalty on a director,... ... ...

The seat of an arbitration refers to the court which has exclusive jurisdiction over the transaction. Seat in the context of International Commercial Arbitration is one of the most crucial aspects that determines the course of arbitration proceedings. If in an arbitration agreement, a certain place is selected as the seat, then the courts of that place will have jurisdiction over that matter, if any dispute arises related to the agreement. Seat creates a legal base for arbitration because it det... ... ...

Writ jurisdiction generally cannot be used to challenge an order-in-original on merits after the statutory appellate remedy has lapsed. An efficacious statutory remedy must be pursued unless exceptional grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction or the deciding authority's incompetence, are established. Expiry of the appeal limitation period and any pre-deposit requirement do not justify bypassing the appellate process. Without a jurisdictional or competence-based challenge, a merits challenge is not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Vacant possession of unused SEZ premises is separated from monetary disputes arising under a sub-lease. Where the agreed final deadline for commencing operations was missed and the premises remained unused, the occupant must vacate after supervised inventory and removal of movables, enabling re-sub-lease to another entrepreneur. Claims for rent, maintenance, interest, damages, termination consequences, and infrastructure improvements require arbitral determination, with inventory and valuation assistance where necessary. Statutory questions concerning rent-control and SEZ regimes need not be resolved to release premises from continued non-use.

Section 39(1) scrutiny of a continuously registered dealer's returns requires prior issuance of the prescribed Section 35 notice; returns filed under Section 35(2) alone do not satisfy that condition. The five-year assessment limitation in Section 57 applies to Section 39 scrutiny and cannot be bypassed through that mechanism. Delegation of the Commissioner's Section 39 power to a Superintendent of Taxes requires an Official Gazette notification under Section 26 and Rule 3; internal orders or circulars are insufficient. Jurisdictional defects caused by absent notice or valid delegation permit recourse to writ jurisdiction despite the alternative remedy under Section 65.

Revenue neutrality may defeat an excise-duty demand alleging undervaluation where goods cleared to a sister unit are used as raw materials and the recipient takes full CENVAT credit of the duty paid. As valuation differences cause no net revenue loss in those circumstances, the demand lacks merit. The extended limitation period is also unavailable when clearance and valuation particulars have been disclosed in regularly filed ER-1 returns, because that disclosure negates suppression of facts.

Rule 8 governs valuation of excisable goods used for captive consumption in manufacturing other articles, even where part of the same goods is sold to independent buyers. Its substitution extended coverage to goods wholly or partly not sold and removed the differential valuation anomaly affecting identical captive clearances. The substituted provision operates retrospectively as a remedial measure. Accordingly, captive clearances are valued under Rule 8 rather than Rule 4 where some production is independently sold.

CENVAT credit for engineering, testing, recruitment, training, IT, professional, travel and captive-power-plant services is available where the services facilitate and are integrally connected with manufacturing operations. Before 1 April 2011, satisfaction of the inclusive limb of the input-service definition did not require a direct nexus with manufacture. After the amendment, credit remains available where services have a direct or indirect nexus with manufacture and clearance and do not fall within an exclusion. Captive-power-plant services remain connected with manufacture when substantially all electricity is used in production. Credit cannot be denied on grounds absent from the show cause notice, including unsupported allegations concerning ISD invoices or non-correlatable documents.

Clandestine-manufacture and under-invoicing allegations require legally admissible evidence and independent corroboration. Electronic records must satisfy the certification and production safeguards under Section 36B, while private or third-party records require a verified link to the assessee. Electricity consumption or alleged theft cannot establish unaccounted production without plant-specific scientific norms and evidence connecting consumption to quantified manufacture and clearance. Alleged production must also be physically achievable within installed plant capacity. Statements cannot prove their contents unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D is followed. Without these evidentiary foundations, excise liability, interest, and penalty lack a sustainable basis.

Transport of coal in tipping trucks, with loading by contractors' pay loaders, does not constitute cargo handling service where the activity is merely shifting coal and does not involve an independently provided loading, unloading, packing or unpacking service. A service-tax demand cannot be sustained when the show-cause notice invokes a charging provision no longer in force and omits the applicable provision operative when the notice was issued. Reference to a later statutory provision does not cure reliance on the deleted charging provision. The proposed levy therefore fails both on taxable-service classification and on the validity of the charging basis pleaded in the notice.

Known statutory encumbrances disclosed in a secured-asset sale notice and sale certificate must be discharged before the purchaser can receive the property free from them. Rules 9(6) to 9(10) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules require disclosure of known encumbrances and deposit of the amount needed to satisfy them; a purchaser with express notice cannot remove recorded departmental dues without payment. Priority of secured creditors over government dues does not displace those mandatory sale requirements. A departmental attachment restricting transfer, mortgage, or charge constitutes an encumbrance. Issuance and registration of a sale certificate do not end the secured creditor's statutory rights while its debt remains unrecovered and recovery proceedings continue.

Review petitions concerning clubbing of clearances for SSI exemption, lifting of the corporate veil, pervasive financial and management control, aggregation, suppression of material facts, and the extended limitation period were dismissed for lack of merit. The dismissal leaves undisturbed the treatment of interconnected entities and their clearances under the applicable SSI exemption framework.

For commercial or industrial construction services, the gross amount charged for service tax valuation excludes goods or materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient. Such supplies cannot be added to the assessable value unless legislation specifically requires their inclusion. The valuation principle therefore confines taxable service value to amounts charged for the taxable service, excluding the value of free-supplied materials.

Non-submission of a board resolution is a curable procedural defect that does not defeat the substantive right of appeal. Dismissal of a numbered appeal solely for that defect, without a defect notice and reasonable opportunity to rectify it, is impermissible. Statutory pre-deposit requirements may be met through amounts paid during audit or investigation before filing an appeal where those amounts are appropriated towards the confirmed demand. The first appellate authority must therefore adjudicate the challenge on merits after hearing the assessee and considering all available grounds.

Service-tax demand initiated through a show-cause notice served beyond the applicable limitation period, after allowing for the relevant pandemic-related extension, is unsustainable. A signing date does not establish timely service where postal records show booking after the permitted period. Further, a difference between VAT and ST-3 returns does not establish unreported taxable receipts when VAT-reported receipts correspond to payments disclosed across the relevant ST-3 returns. On those grounds, the service-tax demand, interest and penalties cannot be sustained.