Upon entry into force, the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement grants duty-free access in New Zealand for 100 per cent of Indian exports, including textiles and apparel, leather and footwear, engineering goods, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and processed food products. It also provides enhanced preferential access to the Indian market for specified New Zealand exports. The Agreement further covers services, investment, professional, student and youth mobility, and cooperation in agricultural productivity, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, traditional medicine and AYUSH, technology, and trade facilitation.

Competition approval has been granted for a proposed combination involving OMERS Infrastructure Asia Holdings Pte. Ltd.'s acquisition of certain additional shareholding in Azure Power Global Limited from CDPQ Infrastructures Asia Pte. Ltd. Azure Power Global Limited is the parent entity of the Azure group, which establishes and operates renewable energy plants and sells solar power in India.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has approved acquisition of certain equity share capital of Great White Global Private Limited by ISAF III Onshore Fund, India Special Assets Fund III, Special Situation India Fund, Mr. Mehul Jadavji Shah, Ms. Julie Mehul Shah and Mehul Shah HUF and related transactions. The proposed combination pertains to- • the proposed acquisition of 50% of the issued and paid-up equity share capital of Great White Global Private Limited (Great White) by ... ... ...

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has approved acquisition of three professional cricket franchises: (i) Rajasthan Royals (India), (ii) Paarl Royals (South Africa) and (iii) Barbados Royals (Barbados) by Westview Cricket Limited and Poonawalla Sports and Fitness Private Limited. The proposed combination pertains to the acquisition of three professional cricket franchises, (i) Rajasthan Royals (India), (ii) Paarl Royals (South Africa) and (iii) Barbados Royals (Barbados) by Westview Cr... ... ...

Coercive recovery of GST dues during search, inspection, or investigation is incompatible with proceedings remaining fact-finding exercises. Allegations of wrongful Input Tax Credit availment by a supplier whose registration was subsequently cancelled do not justify pressuring another taxpayer to discharge liabilities during an ongoing investigation. Recovery must follow the prescribed legal process, with Instruction No. 01/2022-23 serving as a safeguard against coercive enforcement and undue interference with normal business operations.

Section 67(7) of the CGST Act imposes a statutory limit on retention of goods seized under Section 67(2). Where no notice in respect of the seized goods is given within six months from seizure, the goods must be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Although the first proviso to Section 67(2) permits a prohibition order where physical seizure is impracticable, such restraint remains subject to the same temporal safeguard. Continuation of an investigation does not by itself sustain detention or restraint beyond the permitted period.

Where the grantor regulates public services, users and tariffs and retains a significant residual interest, a bus-stop concession falls within Appendix D to Ind AS 115. The operator does not recognise the underlying infrastructure as Property, Plant and Equipment despite construction or operational responsibilities. Consideration for construction, upgrade, operation and maintenance services is recognised under Ind AS 115 as a financial asset to the extent of an unconditional right to cash from the grantor, an intangible asset where the operator has a right to charge users, or both. Such arrangements are not automatically leases.

Section 54F applies to long-term capital gains from transfer of a long-term asset other than a residential house when an eligible individual or Hindu Undivided Family invests in one residential house in India within prescribed purchase or construction periods. Structural additions to an existing residential property may constitute construction rather than mere renovation where evidence establishes use of capital gains and the work is completed within the prescribed period. A prior claim relating to purchase of the same property does not by itself preclude a later claim based on subsequent capital gains used for qualifying further construction.

GST treatment of maintenance invoices turns on the person legally liable to pay for the maintenance supply, not merely the person occupying the premises or making payment. A tenant's direct payment of charges contractually payable by the owner does not alone make the tenant the recipient or support input tax credit. Direct invoicing to a registered tenant is more supportable where a genuine tripartite arrangement makes the tenant directly liable to the developer, aligns the allotment and lease arrangements, and is consistently implemented in invoices, records and accounting practices.

Contractual GST reimbursement claims arising after input tax credit reversal concern the inter se allocation of an indirect-tax burden between parties, rather than tax liability owed to revenue authorities. At the arbitrator-appointment stage, review is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement covering the dispute. Such a claim is not manifestly non-arbitrable merely because it involves GST; jurisdiction and arbitrability objections may be determined by the arbitral tribunal. The claim may therefore proceed to arbitration through appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Contractual self-help repossession of a hypothecated vehicle requires compliance with binding RBI fair-recovery safeguards and contractual fairness. A valid repossession clause must provide prior notice, an opportunity to cure default, a lawful and peaceful possession process, and a transparent sale procedure; terms allowing termination without notice, entry wherever located, or unilateral waiver of notice fail those standards. Repossession without the stipulated pre-repossession notice, through forcible night-time seizure, breaches those safeguards and may constitute arbitrary deprivation affecting livelihood interests under Articles 14 and 21. Delay does not defeat relief where the borrower pursued remedies bona fide and no prejudice is established. Relief includes restitution, interest, compensation, and costs without necessarily undoing a completed sale.

Assessed VAT refunds must be paid with statutory interest where the assessment determines a refundable amount and payment remains outstanding. Prolonged non-payment, despite an assessed refund, does not justify further time for the Department. Interest on the unpaid refundable amount is governed by section 38(6) of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The taxpayer is entitled to receive the assessed refund together with interest calculated under that provision.

Cenvat credit remains available where departmental verification and contemporaneous purchase and clearance records establish actual receipt, duty payment, and use of inputs in manufacture. Incomplete supplier addresses on invoices are treated as procedural deficiencies that do not defeat substantive entitlement when the underlying transactions and duty-paid nature of inputs are verified. Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, preserves credit where reliable evidence establishes compliance despite invoice defects.

Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules requires the amortised value of tools, dies and moulds, separately sold to customers but subsequently used in manufacture, to be included in the assessable value of the final products. Their full sale value is not includible at once because the tooling is repeatedly used across production. Captive consumption exemption is unavailable where the tooling is separately sold and its value is not absorbed in the final products. Failure to include the amortised value despite adopting that approach for customer-supplied tooling supports invocation of the extended limitation period, with consequential interest and penalty subject to recalculation.

Revenue-neutral inter-unit excise clearances valued under Rule 8 do not sustain a differential duty demand where the receiving manufacturing unit uses the goods as inputs for dutiable finished products and can fully avail CENVAT credit. As the transferor and recipient units belong to the same assessee, any additional duty payable would be correspondingly creditable, eliminating any benefit from the adopted valuation. Disclosure of valuation particulars in ER-1 returns negates suppression of facts and prevents invocation of the extended limitation period. Differential duty for the extended period is therefore time-barred.

Bagasse, as agricultural waste or residue not produced through manufacture under the Central Excise Act, falls outside Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The marketability deeming provision cannot operate without a process amounting to manufacture. Accordingly, Rule 6(3) cannot support demands relating to bagasse-based electricity or press-mud on that premise. Revenue cannot require selection of the Rule 6(3) payment option where proportionate Cenvat credit has been reversed, since such reversal is equivalent to non-availment of credit. Demands for payment, interest and penalty on this basis are unsustainable.

Investigation statements in central excise proceedings require statutory evidentiary safeguards: unless exceptional circumstances apply, the maker must be examined, the statement admitted through a reasoned determination, and cross-examination allowed. Electronic data and computer printouts require prescribed conditions and a certificate identifying the record, device, production method, and operational conditions. Non-compliant statements and electronic material are inadmissible. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance must additionally rest on tangible, cogent, independently corroborated evidence of manufacture, removal, transport, buyers, sale proceeds, capacity, electricity use, or labour where relevant. Without compliant evidence and corroboration, duty, interest, and penalty demands for alleged clandestine removal are unsustainable.

CENVAT credit is admissible for the additional customs duty paid at the concessional rate on imported coal. Additional customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act corresponds to excise duty, and the CENVAT Credit Rules permit credit of that duty. A concessional rate prescribed under a Customs Act public-interest exemption notification continues to represent the relevant excise-duty component for credit purposes. Restrictions applicable to exemptions granted under Central Excise notifications do not apply to additional customs duty paid under the Customs notification. The concessional additional customs duty paid on imported coal therefore remains eligible for CENVAT credit.

Service-tax liability under the reverse-charge mechanism is revenue-neutral where any tax paid would be fully available to the same assessee as CENVAT credit. In those circumstances, the payment creates an equivalent credit entitlement, rendering the service-tax demand unsustainable. A consequential penalty is likewise unsustainable where the underlying demand fails on revenue-neutrality grounds.

Composite works contracts involving both construction and transfer of materials were not taxable under construction of residential complex service before works contract service became taxable on 1 June 2007. The earlier entry neither imposed a charge on the composite transaction nor prescribed a valuation mechanism to separate the service component from the goods component. Abatement notifications could not remedy the absence of a charging provision. Consequently, service tax demands on such pre-1 June 2007 residential-complex works contracts were unsustainable.