Classification of cinematographic-film copyright licensing - GST regularisation on an "as is where is" basis - Writ jurisdiction despite alternative statutory remedy Writ jurisdiction despite alternative statutory remedy - Jurisdictional error in tax classification - Maintainability of the writ petitions challenging GST classification orders despite the statutory appellate remedy - HELD THAT: - Availability of an alternative remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned classificati... ... ...

Effect of omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules without a saving clause - Refund of IGST paid on export of services - Continuation of refund proceedings under omitted Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules in respect of IGST paid on export of services - HELD THAT: - The omission of Rule 96(10), without a saving or sunset clause, brought pending proceedings under that rule to an end. The recommendation that the omission should operate prospectively was advisory and did not bind the rule-making auth... ... ...

Effect of appellate decision on precedent relied upon - Consideration of unadjudicated grounds of challenge Restoration of the challenge to the GST show-cause notice where the precedent forming the sole basis for allowing the writ petition no longer supported that result and other grounds remained unconsidered - HELD THAT: - The writ petition had been allowed solely on the basis of an earlier decision, but the appeal against that decision had been allowed. The foundation of the impugned order... ... ...

Bail registered for the offence punishable u/ss 132(1)(b), (c), (f) & (I) punishable u/ss 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods & Services Tax, 2017. HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence, Patna in connection with Comp... ... ...

Coercive recovery during GST search proceedings - GST investigation guidelines Interim safeguards during an ongoing GST inspection/search where the assessee alleged pressure to discharge liability - HELD THAT: - Having regard to the applicable investigation guidelines and the rival contentions concerning alleged pressure for payment during the inspection/search, the Court considered it necessary to protect the assessee's ordinary business operations pending return of notice. [Paras 7] ... ... ...

Notice as allegedly served by uploading it on common portal Contention of the petitioner(s) that the High Court of Madras as well as Delhi High Court have viewed service of notice by uploading on portal as incomplete particularly where the relevant information may be referable to two tabs, namely, "View Additional Notices/Orders", and "View Notices and Orders". It is the case of the petitioner(s) that his case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Madras High Court as well as Delhi High... ... ...

Alternative statutory remedy under the GST appellate framework - violation of principles of natural justice - Maintainability of the writ petition challenging penalty proceedings and the appellate order when an appeal to the GST Tribunal was available - HELD THAT: - Interim order. Notice issued; the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal before the GSTAT without pre-deposit, subject to the outcome of the petition.... ... ...

Coercive recovery during an ongoing GST inspection or search, where payment is alleged to have been obtained through pressure, may be subject to interim safeguards. Normal business operations may continue pending further consideration, while tax authorities refrain from coercive steps to discharge the alleged liability. Investigation guidelines remain applicable throughout the inspection or search, providing the framework for conduct of the inquiry and protection against pressured payment pending notice.

Anti-profiteering under section 171 of the CGST Act requires a benefit arising from a GST rate reduction or additional input tax credit to be passed to recipients through a commensurate price reduction. For affordable apartments launched and booked after GST commenced, the agreed price already reflected applicable GST rates and no pre-GST CENVAT credit was available for comparison with post-GST input tax credit. Differential GST realisation from purchasers does not constitute a saving or profiteering benefit under section 171. A profiteering computation founded on alleged excess GST recovery was therefore rejected, as recovery of excess GST falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction; the excess amount was to be refunded in accordance with law.

GST rate reductions on cinema admission tickets must be passed to consumers through a commensurate price reduction, even where State rules prescribe maximum ticket prices. A maximum-price cap does not prevent lower pricing. Retaining cum-tax ticket prices while increasing the base price, without cogent justification and without challenging the computation, constituted failure to pass on the tax benefit; cost and market factors were immaterial. Where ticket recipients cannot be identified, the profiteered amount, with interest, is payable in equal shares to the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds. An anti-profiteering penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively where the penalty provision entered into force after the investigated period.

Section 171 of the CGST Act requires suppliers to pass any GST-rate reduction to recipients through a commensurate reduction in prices. For cinema admission tickets, increased base prices and general commercial pricing considerations do not displace that obligation. A supplier must provide cogent evidence that the tax benefit reached viewers; failure to challenge the DGAP methodology or substantiate price increases supports a finding of non-passing. Non-reduction of first- and second-class ticket prices after the rate cut constituted contravention, requiring deposit of the profiteered amount with interest in consumer welfare funds; no penalty was imposed.

Anti-profiteering computation for construction services must account for GST input tax credit that remained unutilised and was subsequently reversed. The additional credit benefit attributable to eligible homebuyers requires a commensurate reduction in price and must be passed on, including applicable GST, with 18% interest from collection of the excess amount until repayment. Penalty for failure to pass on the benefit does not apply to the relevant period because the penalty provision came into force only after that period ended.

Curative and clarificatory amendment to the Rule 89(5) refund formula applies retrospectively to refund or rectification applications filed within the statutory period, including differential claims for pre-amendment periods under an inverted duty structure. An administrative circular treating the amendment as prospective cannot override the statutory refund entitlement. Supplementary refund claims are maintainable despite earlier adjudication of refunds for the same tax periods, provided the differential amount is otherwise admissible and claimed within the prescribed period. Eligible differential refunds remain subject to arithmetical verification.

Unaccounted bricks and coal found during survey are to be taxed by treating the goods as supplied and applying assessment provisions, rather than through confiscation proceedings and penalty for excess stock. Where the entire confiscation order, including penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation, has been quashed and that finding remains unchallenged, no separate basis survives to maintain or restore the fine. Revenue appeals limited to restoration of the fine were therefore dismissed.

Departmental GST appeals below the prescribed monetary limit require the Revenue to identify and establish a specified exception to the binding litigation-management policy. A bare assertion that the Commissioner approved an appeal does not establish a case-specific, reasoned exercise of residual discretion or satisfy conditions governing the right of appeal. Maintainability must be determined before tax merits. Without an established exception, an appeal below the threshold is not maintainable and the underlying tax merits are not examined.

Mandatory seven-day period for passing a detention penalty order after service of notice under section 129(3) is binding because of the term "shall". A penalty order issued after that period violates the statutory time limit and vitiates the detention penalty proceedings. Such an order is void from inception and a nullity; an appellate order affirming it must also be set aside, with consequential relief.

COVID-19 limitation exclusion applies to judicial, quasi-judicial and departmental proceedings, and must be excluded when calculating the period for exercising revisional powers where the statutory period overlaps that exclusion. For transport compliance, an e-way bill and tax invoice must cover the actual movement and destination of goods. Documents issued after detention do not cure the absence of destination-specific documentation at interception, particularly where no evidence supports a claimed technical glitch. Such undocumented third-party unloading may be treated as a wilful contravention intended to evade tax and may attract penalty under Section 129(1).

Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act imposes a mandatory seven-day period, measured from service of notice, for issuing a detention-penalty order concerning a transit-document discrepancy. The term "shall" requires strict compliance because the provision authorises coercive detention and seizure; the absence of an express consequence for delay does not make the limit directory. An order passed after the prescribed period is illegal and without jurisdiction, with consequential setting aside of the penalty and appellate orders and release of the bank guarantee.

Transfer-pricing comparability under the Transactional Net Margin Method may apply a turnover ceiling where it rests on a rational and logical basis, despite no prescribed turnover filter. Comparable entities must be closely aligned in functions, assets and risks because enterprise size and significant turnover differences can affect pricing. A software-product developer that owns intellectual property or develops and markets products is functionally distinct from a captive software-development service provider developing solely for its associated enterprise. Where the final comparable set has been determined, remand may be confined to reconsideration of identified exclusions rather than requiring a wholly fresh arm's-length-price exercise.

Internal comparables under the transactional net margin method should generally be preferred to external comparables where audited segmental accounts reliably distinguish associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise transactions. Segmental financials extracted from audited accounts may support arm's length price determination where a chartered accountant certifies both their mathematical accuracy and allocation on a generally accepted rational basis. A claim that segmental data were not maintained is unsustainable when the relevant segmental figures are demonstrably derived from audited accounts.