Facts. The petitioner, engaged in renting/leasing of immovable property, had initially refrained from availing ITC on construction procurements in view of the statutory block. After the Orissa High Court read down Section 17(5)(d) in Safari Retreats, it intimated the department on 16 August 2019 proposing to claim about ₹22.51 crore and sought approval, which was never granted. It nonetheless availed ₹103.45 crore of ITC on works contract, inputs, input services and capital goods used for construction, later reversing ₹89.07 crore under protest. A Section 74 SCN and OIO confirmed about ₹92.29 crore as ineligible with interest and an equal penalty.

Ruling. Following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Safari Retreats (and dismissal of the review), the Court held the credit was squarely barred by Section 17(5)(c)/(d) — a let-out building being neither a “plant” nor within the carve-out on the functionality test — and, in any event, was availed beyond the Section 16(4) limitation. A unilateral intimation outside the GST regime, unanswered by the department, could not create a bona fide belief or negate suppression, so the extended period and equal penalty under Section 74 were justified; bunching of multiple tax periods in one notice was also upheld. The writ was dismissed, with liberty to appeal.

Facts. The assessee sought refund of unutilised ITC of ₹6.49 lakh for July–September 2019; the department partly sanctioned ₹3.05 lakh and rejected ₹3.44 lakh. The Appellate Authority (OIA dated 27 September 2025) set aside that rejection, but the Assistant Commissioner again rejected the consequential refund by order dated 20 February 2026, recording detailed reasons on turnover reconciliation across GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 and on the Rule 89(4) formula. The assessee moved the High Court contending that the appellate order had finally settled its entitlement and it could not be relegated to appeal.

Ruling. The Court held the appellate order had merely set aside the earlier rejection on specified grounds, without directing unconditional release or foreclosing fresh examination on other legally permissible grounds. Since the impugned order independently examined the claim and gave reasons on turnover mismatches affecting the “adjusted total turnover” denominator under Rule 89(4), it was neither non est nor wholly without jurisdiction. A Section 107 appeal was the proper forum to test the legality of those reasons and the scope of the appellate order; accordingly, the writ was dismissed with liberty to appeal and to seek exclusion of the time spent.

Facts. The appellant, registered under service tax, provided visa consultancy and referral services to foreign universities and a Canadian bank. Treating these as “intermediary services” under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, the department, via two SCNs for April 2015–March 2016 and April 2016–June 2017, confirmed service tax of about ₹37.07 lakh and ₹1.27 crore with interest and penalties, which the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld. The core dispute was whether the services were taxable intermediary services or exempt export of services.

Ruling. The Tribunal followed its own earlier order in the appellant’s case (16 March 2018) and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Genpact India, reiterating that an “intermediary” requires a principal-agency relationship, facilitation of a main service between two other persons, and non-performance of the main service on one’s own account — all absent here. The appellant supplied the main service on a principal-to-principal basis, so the services were export of services, not intermediary services, and no tax was payable. As the activities were already within departmental knowledge (the extended period having earlier been held time-barred), its invocation was bad in law, and interest and penalties could not survive.

Facts. The appellant, an STPI-registered EOU exporting voice-based ITES to clients in the UK, Ireland and Australia, filed 18 refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 aggregating about ₹56.15 crore for April 2012–September 2016. The original authority partly sanctioned; the Commissioner (Appeals) denied ₹6.44 crore — ₹92.08 lakh for want of nexus, ₹5.14 crore for belated debit entries, ₹24.58 lakh for ST-3 non-reflection, ₹21,793 for invoice/PAN defects and ₹11.70 lakh for want of documentary proof.

Ruling. The Tribunal held that Rule 14 (read with Section 73) is the only mechanism to question irregular credit; absent any such recovery proceedings at the availment stage, the department could not later deny a Rule 5 refund on nexus, which is examinable only for compliance with the prescribed formula — undisputed here. Belated debit entries were duly captured in the CENVAT register and were a curable procedural lapse; the ST-3 particulars stood reflected in later returns; and minor invoice/PAN irregularities could not defeat refund where exports were undisputed. Refund of ₹6.31 crore was allowed, ₹1.64 lakh (voluntarily withdrawn) disallowed, and ₹11.70 lakh remanded for documentary verification.

Facts. The appellant manufactures “Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh” and classified it under Tariff Item 2202 90 20. On audit, the department sought to reclassify it as lemonade under 2202 10 20 and, via SCNs, demanded duty of about ₹1.34 crore and ₹3.98 lakh with interest and penalties, and disputed CENVAT credit of ₹2.77 lakh on waste-disposal services and ₹1.65 lakh on an air-pollution survey. The Commissioner and the first appellate authority confirmed the demands.

Ruling. Following the Larger Bench in Brindavan Beverages, the Tribunal held that a nimbu drink with not less than 5% lime/lemon juice and total soluble solids of not less than 10% classifies under 2202 90 20 as a fruit-juice-based drink; the product met these parameters, so the lemonade classification was set aside. On credit, services for disposal of industrial waste and polluted water — mandated by environmental law — and an air-pollution survey required by the principal for quality standards were “input services” within the wide Rule 2(l), being integrally connected to manufacture. With the duty and credit demands unsustainable, penalties and interest also fell, and both appeals were allowed.

Facts. The applicant sought a ruling on the classification of vehicle-mounted digital dashcams that draw power from the vehicle and, using a wide-angle lens, continuously record the driver’s surroundings in “MOV”/”ts” format as rapidly-captured still images at 24–30 fps. The devices feature a CMOS image sensor, minimum Full-HD resolution, continuous loop-recording, a G-sensor for automatic event logging and in-built microphones. The questions were the correct sub-heading under Heading 8525 and the applicable concessional notification entry.

Ruling. The Authority found the dashcams did not satisfy the technical parameters for Sub-headings 8525 81, 8525 82 or 8525 83 and were therefore “other” video-camera recorders under Tariff Item 8525 89 00. As they are neither CCTV nor IP cameras, they qualify for the concessional duty under Sl. No. 289 of Notification No. 45/2025-Cus.; the benefit under Sl. No. 288 (digital still-image cameras) was held inapplicable because a dashcam, recording continuous video, is not a still-image camera.