Input tax credit in Bill To-Ship To export transactions depends on statutory conditions and reliable evidence of receipt, transport and export, not on toll plaza records. Goods may be delivered directly to a ship-to location on the recipient's instructions and need not begin movement from the supplier's registered premises. Where the immediate supplier is registered and invoices, e-way bills, bilty copies, transporter confirmation, export records and banking evidence are undisputed, upstream supplier defaults alone do not transfer liability to the recipient. Appellate proceedings remain confined to the grounds contained in the show cause notice.

Under Rule 43 of the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, a Recovery Officer must decide a third party's bona fide claim of independent possession before pursuing physical delivery through an Advocate Commissioner. Rule 39 concerns property occupied by the defaulter, persons acting for the defaulter, or persons claiming through a post-attachment title. Where an occupier disputes the identity or boundaries of the auctioned property and asserts a pre-existing partition-based title, the objection requires prior determination.

GST common adjudication requires separate verification of an officer's jurisdiction and the administrative assignment of a particular case. Notifications and statutory provisions confer competence; circulars may distribute covered cases among already empowered officers but cannot create or transfer jurisdiction. Under the highest-tax-demand criterion, the noticee with the greatest demand and its principal place of business identify the relevant allocation entry and designated Commissionerate. The selected officer must independently fall within the notification's authorised class and the proceedings must be covered by its terms.

GST reform proposals seek to simplify registration, reconcile return liabilities and input tax credit, and automate refunds. Registration changes include simplified applications, automatic acceptance of eligible amendments and cancellations, and simplified registration for qualifying small e-commerce suppliers. Return reforms provide reconciliation between GSTR-1, GSTR-1A, IFF, GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B, supported by reverse-charge and ITC statements. Refund measures include automated electronic cash ledger refunds, deemed acknowledgements, risk-based provisional refunds, system-readable refund applications, and revised rules for zero-rated and pre-deposit refunds.

GST appeal limitation begins on communication of the decision or order under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, not on its issuance date or the retrospective effective date of registration cancellation. The authority must establish actual or constructive knowledge through legally effective service and supporting records before treating an appeal as delayed. Portal availability is a recognised statutory service mode, but its sufficiency for appellate limitation depends on the applicable interpretation and circumstances. Limited condonation applies only after the correct communication date is identified.

For payments to non-residents, no express statutory limitation is identified for orders under Section 201(1). The doctrine of reasonable time therefore requires an assessee-in-default order to be made within a reasonable period. While the authorities discussed apply four years from the end of the relevant financial year, the analysis treats the later seven-year limitation for resident-payment TDS defaults as the appropriate reasonable period for non-resident TDS proceedings, given the common purpose of securing tax at the earliest stage.

Rule 89(4) export-refund calculation must use corrected zero-rated turnover, Net ITC and adjusted total turnover. Valid GST-adjusting credit notes may alter turnover, but only where their statutory basis, invoice linkage, documentary support and applicable time limit are established. Commercial credit notes that merely reduce amounts payable do not automatically reduce GST or turnover for the formula. If a deduction is inadmissible, the permissible refund must be recalculated and compared with the amount claimed or sanctioned; an error alone does not establish an excess refund.

Temporary injunction principles under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 support tailored restraints where publications prima facie portray a person as involved in criminality and risk continuing reputational harm. The relevant assessment considers absence of delay or acquiescence, inadequacy of monetary compensation, balance of convenience, and the risk that media reporting may prejudice investigation or trial. Freedom of speech must be balanced against reputation, dignity, privacy and fair-trial rights. Fair and accurate reporting of FIRs, regulatory disclosures, and judicial or statutory orders remains permissible; non-compliant material may be de-indexed under applicable guidelines.

Fiscal prosecution may proceed without prior assessment or quantified tax evasion where an offence independently concerns delayed filing of a mandatory wealth-tax return or a knowingly false income-tax statement. Section 35B treats willful non-filing by the prescribed due date as a prima facie basis for cognizance; subsequent filing does not cure the alleged default, and culpable mental state requires trial-stage consideration. Section 279 requires prior sanction, while Section 277 penalises statements knowingly believed false. Prima facie material linking undisclosed foreign-company associations or investments with contrary denials may support prosecution without prior assessment or tax quantification. Defences on merits are to be examined at trial.

Dupattas are classifiable as woven fabrics under Entries 3 to 10 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule, according to their material, rather than as fibres under Entry 49 of Part B of the First Schedule. Classification must follow the entry that most appropriately describes the goods' functionality and appearance. Their specified length does not alter their essential character as fabric. The specific-entry principle confines residual classification to goods not specifically covered by a scheduled entry; because woven-fabric entries specifically cover dupattas, they qualify for tax exemption and classification as fibres is incorrect.

Post-GST differential National Calamity Contingent Duty on chewing tobacco cannot be demanded through the Section 4A MRP-based valuation mechanism under Notification No. 49/2008-CE (N.T.). From 1 July 2017, the mechanism was inoperative because the notification continued to refer to the repealed Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was not correspondingly amended. Consequently, differential NCCD demands for the disputed post-GST period based on MRP valuation are unsustainable.

Clandestine removal requires tangible and corroborative evidence; a shortage of Cenvat-credit availed MS ingots alone does not establish illicit clearance. Evidence linking the shortage to removal, including transport records, sales, buyer transactions, consideration or financial flow-back, is necessary to sustain a duty demand. In the absence of such evidence, the shortage may indicate only improper accounting of inputs, and a duty demand founded solely on the shortage cannot be sustained.

Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess on Tea Cess were calculated at factory despatch and accounted for as garden expenditure. Month-wise payment particulars and a Chartered Accountant's certificate evidenced that the cess was paid in the normal course and was not recovered from buyers. Payment of the cess was thereby established for the relevant period.

Concessional excise duty under Entry No. 235 applies only to power-driven pumps primarily designed to handle water. Undefined product descriptions are construed in their common and commercial meaning, so clean water does not include sewage or drainage water. Claimants must strictly establish compliance with exemption conditions; design and manufacturing differences prevented sewage and drainage pumps from qualifying. An unadjudicated and unaccepted audit objection does not create a binding determination, and res judicata does not ordinarily prevent different treatment for distinct tax periods. Differential duty and interest remain payable, but penalty is not justified without supporting evidence of culpable conduct.

Section 35G of the Central Excise Act excludes High Court appellate jurisdiction over questions concerning the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment. Where proposed questions substantially concern determination of taxable-service value under the applicable service-tax valuation mechanism, Section 35L directs the appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, an appeal raising valuation issues for assessment is not maintainable under Section 35G and must proceed through the Section 35L appellate route.

Repair, pre-delivery inspection and warranty services provided to a sister concern were treated as outside Business Auxiliary Service where an earlier, unchallenged adjudication for the same period and materially identical activities had rejected that classification. Extended limitation was unavailable because the Department knew the material facts, while the assessee had sought clarification and surrendered registration on departmental advice; suppression with intent to evade could not be established. The stated consequence was that the service-tax demand, interest and penalties could not survive.

Works contracts awarded through letters of acceptance before 1 March 2015 qualify for the exemption under Sl. No. 12A(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Letters identifying the works, awarding them and accepting offers establish that the contracts were entered into before the relevant date. Subsequent formal agreements and directions to furnish EMD, ISD or performance security relate to execution and do not alter the contract-conclusion date. Consequently, no service tax is payable on the covered works.

Service-tax refund on ocean freight paid by an importer under the reverse-charge mechanism was treated as correctly allowed because the underlying levy imposed through the relevant notifications had been quashed by the jurisdictional High Court. In the absence of a stay, judicial discipline required application of that ruling. The departmental litigation policy's monetary threshold also supported non-pursuit of the challenge. The discussion therefore concerns the invalidated ocean-freight levy, entitlement to consequential refund, and the effect of binding jurisdictional precedent.

Composite works contracts involving goods and services fall outside construction-service categories confined to services simpliciter. Construction-service taxability of residential complexes requires proof of prescribed statutory conditions, including dwelling units attributable to the provider, and an explanation introduced from 1 July 2010 does not apply retrospectively to earlier construction. Subcontract and petty-job receipts require proof of their precise character and independent taxability; absent taxpayer documents do not relieve the Department of its burden of proof. Rental-service liability requires evidence of year-wise receipts, small service provider exemption eligibility, and tax payments on subsequent receipts. Penalties depend on establishing a sustainable underlying demand.

For refund of accumulated CENVAT credit attributable to exported services, the one-year limitation is reckoned from the last day of the quarter in which export proceeds are received in foreign exchange, rather than from the export-invoice date. Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules did not require registration of the premises as a condition for refund of unutilised credit. Requirements concerning the jurisdictional authority for filing a claim do not bar refund solely because invoices relate to unregistered premises. Accordingly, neither the invoice-date limitation objection nor non-registration alone defeats the refund claim.