Registered airport retail outlets beyond immigration counters may claim invoice-based refunds of applicable taxes paid on indigenous goods sold tax-free, against foreign exchange, to eligible outgoing international tourists. The outlets must reverse input tax credit on such goods, cannot claim refund of input-service taxes, and must maintain auditable electronic records linking inward supplies to passenger sales. Claims require prescribed passenger documentation, undertakings, return details and inward-supply statements, with invoices required where they are not reflected in the relevant statement. Improper refunds are recoverable with interest.

Under the pre-1994 Copyright Act, first ownership of copyright in a cinematograph film vested, absent a contrary agreement, in the person at whose instance and for valuable consideration it was made; the producer bore financial and commercial responsibility. A partnership that funded, produced, certified and commercially exploited the film could therefore hold copyright through its partners as joint owners and joint authors at completion. Retirement before completion and transfer of partnership interests undermined the plaintiff's claim. Absence of evidence of personal financing, contributor contracts, profit receipts or loan repayment, together with prolonged inaction, meant no prima facie authorship, ownership or Author's Special Rights were established.

IGST paid on exported goods and refunded to an exporter is not treated as contravening the export-refund restriction where the exporter initially imported inputs without IGST and compensation cess under the identified Customs notifications, later pays those levies with interest, and obtains reassessment of the relevant Bill of Entry by jurisdictional Customs authorities. Payment of IGST and compensation cess on inputs, with exemption confined to basic customs duty, means the specified notification benefit is treated as not availed for the restriction.

Post-sales discounts without further dealer obligations may be excluded from the supplier's value of supply where conditions for post-sale discount exclusion are met. Discounts linked to dealer promotional activities constitute consideration for services supplied by the dealer and attract GST, with corresponding input tax credit for the supplier. Discounts enabling reduced customer prices form part of the dealer's supply consideration. Where discounts are reflected through financial or commercial credit notes without a reduction in supplier tax liability, the dealer need not reverse input tax credit if the reduced supply value and original tax are paid.

Unstitched salwar suit sets and fabric pieces sold before stitching remain classified as fabrics rather than readymade apparel. Their classification depends on constituent material and carries the uniform 5% GST rate applicable to fabrics, without refund of unutilized input tax credit. Cutting fabric into different lengths and packing the pieces does not change their nature or tariff classification; the cut pieces retain the same GST treatment as the original fabric.

Suo motu revisional power cannot be used to set aside an appellate remand requiring the assessing authority to reconsider previously unexamined documents and issue a fresh order after hearing both sides. Such a remand is not prejudicial to revenue merely because it requires proper consideration of material. Revisional interference is improper where the authority refers to documents without deciding their merits and denies the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The appellate remand therefore remains operative.

Dual-energy solar cookers and all sprinklers, including fire water sprinklers, attract GST at 12%, while poultry-keeping machinery parts are expressly included in the relevant 12% rate entry. Agricultural farm produce in packages exceeding 25 kilograms or 25 litres falls outside "pre-packaged and labelled" goods and does not attract 5% GST. Past treatment of these issues is regularised on an "as is where is" basis. For qualifying welfare-scheme supplies of pulses and cereals, regularisation requires certification within 180 days and denial or reversal of input tax credit.

The Single All-India Multipurpose Electronic Bond offers importers and exporters a common electronic bond through ICEGATE instead of separate transaction-wise bonds at different customs ports. It may cover provisional assessment, export-promotion imports, concessional import or export, warehousing, and manufacture or other operations in private and special warehouses. Electronic execution includes online stamp-duty payment, e-stamping and electronic signatures through NeSL without notarisation. Electronic bank guarantees may be linked through ICEGATE, while supplementary bonds permit additional obligations or increased bond amounts.

Retrospective eligibility for input tax credit applies to specified invoices and debit notes for financial years 2017-18 through 2020-21 and to eligible credit following revocation of cancelled registration. Pending investigations, adjudications, appeals, and revisions concerning denial solely for the former time limit must apply the revised position. A special electronic rectification procedure is available for unappealed demand orders involving such credit, subject to the prescribed period and supporting proforma. Tax already paid or credit reversed is generally not refundable, except for appeal pre-deposits where the appeal is decided in favour of the taxpayer.

Data hosting providers operating data centres and associated infrastructure on their own account supply services to overseas cloud computing providers on a principal-to-principal basis. The services are neither intermediary services, services in relation to recipient-made-available goods, nor services directly related to immovable property. As no specific place-of-supply rule applies, the default recipient-location rule governs the supply. Where the cloud computing provider is located outside India, the place of supply is outside India and the supply may be treated as export of services subject to fulfilment of the remaining statutory export conditions.

Section 263 revision requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Penalty for alleged contraventions involving cash loans or deposits is initiated by the Joint Commissioner, and the Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction or make a reference cannot alone satisfy those conditions. Cash receipts assessed as business income cannot simultaneously be characterised as loans or deposits for the relevant prohibition; non-initiation of penalty was therefore a legally possible view. Revision was also barred for issues already considered in appeal. The revision orders were invalid, and the original assessment orders were restored.

Extended reassessment under the fourth proviso to Section 153A(1) requires material showing escaped income represented by an asset within Explanation 2, satisfaction of the prescribed threshold, and fulfilment of other statutory conditions. Alleged bogus purchases and disallowed professional fees, without a demonstrated asset-linked form of escaped income, do not satisfy that jurisdictional requirement. Reopening beyond the ordinary assessment period is consequently invalid, and the resulting assessment and consequential orders are quashed.

General penalty imposed after a return was filed and statutory late fee paid cannot exceed the maximum limit under the U.P. GST Act. The return had been filed and the late fee paid in accordance with law. As the penalty exceeded that statutory cap, the show-cause notice and penalty order were quashed and set aside. The writ petition was disposed of.

Section 75(7) of the UPGST Act bars confirmation of a GST demand on grounds not proposed in the DRC-01 show cause notice. A demand founded in the final order on a ground different from that set out in the notice breaches this mandatory requirement and constitutes an incurable defect in the proceedings. The demand order was therefore quashed, while preserving the revenue's liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law.

Condonation of delay in a statutory GST appeal was granted after the proprietor attributed the delayed filing to attendance on a critically ill spouse. High Court, acting on the parties' concession and the explanation furnished, set aside the appellate dismissal as time-barred and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits. Restoration was conditional on timely payment of costs; failure to comply would remove the benefit of restoration. All issues on the underlying GST dispute remained open before the appellate authority.

Prospective restrictions on Grade A and Grade B Baryte govern exports from their effective date; pre-notification stockholding without completed export formalities creates no vested right to licence-free export. Foreign trade policy may change in public interest unless arbitrary, mala fide or unlawful, so neither legitimate expectation nor promissory estoppel preserves an earlier free-export classification. Licensing restrictions based on strategic-resource, national-security and resource-planning concerns are proportionate where exports remain regulated rather than prohibited. Transitional protection may validly be confined to exporters holding a valid ICLC, as it evidences an irreversible commitment. Restricted-export authorisation applications must be decided urgently by reasoned order; indefinite pendency would create a de facto prohibition.

Company Court jurisdiction to take custody of property apparently belonging to a company and determine competing title claims supported adjudication of ownership of paintings claimed as liquidation assets; the jurisdictional objection failed. Family consent terms resolving private disputes did not transfer title to, or bind, the company or Official Liquidator. The claimant's failure to produce title evidence or face cross-examination justified an adverse inference, and the private title claim failed. Asset-register entries, purchase vouchers, seizure records, police affidavits and gallery confirmation established, on a preponderance of probabilities, that five paintings belonged to the liquidation estate; their auction sale was approved, while title to remaining paintings remained open subject to preservation.

The IT and IT-enabled services Special Economic Zone at Talwade Software Park is de-notified through rescission of its 2007 notification under the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. The rescission follows the developer's proposal, the State Government's no-objection certificate, and the Development Commissioner's recommendation. The entire notified SEZ area is removed from SEZ status, with post-de-notification land use to conform to State Government guidelines or master plans. The rescission preserves acts done and omissions occurring before it took effect.

Land parcels totalling 141.8714 hectares are de-notified from the multi-product Special Economic Zone at Gopalpur, District Ganjam, Odisha, under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. The de-notification reduces the resultant notified SEZ area to 164.0449 hectares. The identified parcels in Badapur, Jagannathpur and Sindhigaon are intended for establishment of new industrial units in the domestic tariff area.

Duty-free imports of raw sugar under Exim Code 170114 remain free within a tariff rate quota of 10 lakh MT until 31 December 2026. The amendment extends the previous deadline of 31 October 2026 by two months. All other conditions governing duty-free imports under the tariff rate quota, as previously prescribed, remain unchanged.