Taxation Law - GST – Export of Services – Clinical Trials / Pharma R&D Services – Place of Supply – Services rendered by Indian pharma company to foreign recipients – Recipient located outside India – Held: Clinical trial and R&D services qualify as “export of services” under IGST Act when recipient is situated in non-taxable territory [Paras 5, 8–10].

Integrated GST – Section 13(3)(a) – Applicability – Goods made physically available – Samples provided by foreign clients for clinical trials not “goods” requiring physical availability in terms of Section 13(3)(a) – Such samples consumed in process and not marketable commodities – Held: Section 13(3)(a) not attracted to clinical trial services [Paras 6–8].

Notification No. 04/2019–IGST dated 30.09.2019 – Nature and Effect – Notification issued pursuant to 37th GST Council Meeting clarifying place of supply of pharma R&D and clinical trial services – Clarificatory and declaratory in nature – Held: Notification operates retrospectively and applies to period prior to 30.09.2019 [Paras 6–10].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Operation – Clarificatory Amendments – Amendments, notifications or circulars which clarify existing legal position or remove ambiguity are retrospective in nature – Reliance placed on Vatika Township, Suchitra Components and Mysore Electricals Industries [Paras 9–11].

GST Demand – Validity – Adjudication and Appellate Orders – Authorities erred in treating Notification No. 04/2019–IGST as prospective – Levy of GST for period April 2018 to March 2019 held unsustainable – Demand contrary to statutory scheme and GST Council clarification [Paras 5, 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned appellate order dated 25.02.2025 under Section 107(11) and adjudication order dated 28.03.2024 set aside – GST demand quashed – Petitioner held not liable to GST on clinical trial services rendered to foreign recipients [Final Order].

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Cruelty – False Criminal Complaints – Decree Affirmed – Husband sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA alleging mental cruelty – Wife lodged complaint for dowry harassment and alleged second marriage after long lapse of time – All accused acquitted – Held: Lodging false and unsubstantiated criminal complaints and indulging in character assassination amounts to mental cruelty justifying dissolution of marriage [Paras 7, 10–11, 13–15].

Family Law – Mental Cruelty – Character Assassination – Court held that imputations of dowry demand and bigamy without proof caused serious mental agony to husband and his family – Filing of such complaints after reconciliation and birth of children treated as contrived afterthought – Findings of Trial Court upheld [Paras 7, 10–13].

Appreciation of Evidence – Family Court Proceedings – Concurrent Findings – Family Court relied on earlier decree of restitution of conjugal rights, subsequent conduct of wife, criminal proceedings and acquittal – Held: Proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or illegality warranting appellate interference [Paras 7, 9–11, 15].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Subsequent Conduct – Respondent obtained decree for restitution but wife failed to resume cohabitation – Even after compromise and resumption of cohabitation, disputes revived – Subsequent criminal litigation considered relevant conduct for assessing cruelty [Paras 3, 7, 9–10].

Children – Educational and Future Expenses – Undertaking by Husband – Court took judicial notice of school fee receipts and affidavit filed by husband undertaking to bear educational and marriage expenses of daughters – Held: Undertaking binding – Direction issued to strictly comply with same [Paras 12, 14, 16].

Long Separation – Irretrievable Breakdown – Parties living separately for more than a decade – Continuous litigation and acrimony – Though not an independent statutory ground, long separation considered while affirming decree of divorce [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 in FCHMOP No. 60 of 2015 affirmed – Decree of divorce upheld – Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed – No order as to costs – Respondent directed to strictly abide by undertaking regarding children’s future expenses.

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Police party ambushed by extremists; SP Pakur and 5 others killed; 3 injured witnesses (PW-12, 30, 31) survived – Held: Testimony of injured witnesses is entitled to a higher degree of credence as their presence is guaranteed – Minor discrepancies regarding the exact location of taking cover (ditch vs. near vehicle) do not erode evidentiary value in a chaotic ambush scenario – Identification of appellants in court accepted as reliable – [Paras 47, 59, 60].

Evidence Law – Identification – Dock Identification without TIP – Appellants identified by injured witnesses in court; no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: TIP is corroborative, not substantive – Where accused are named or known by aliases heard during the incident (extremists calling out names "Tala Da", "Pravir Da"), and witnesses identify them in court, the identification is valid – Failure to hold TIP is not fatal when accused are identified by injured witnesses who had opportunity to see them from close quarters during looting of arms – [Paras 59(VIII), 60].

Evidence Law – Res Gestae – Section 6 – Statements made by injured witnesses to police personnel arriving immediately after the ambush – Held: While technically the "transaction" of the attack ended, the statements made by injured victims groaning in pain to rescuers arriving shortly thereafter are relevant facts – However, conviction primarily based on direct testimony of injured witnesses – [Paras 33, 34, 61].

Criminal Law – Abetment vs. Presence – Section 109 vs. Section 114 IPC – Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 109 IPC – Held: Section 109 applies to abettors not present at the scene – Since appellants were present and participated, Section 114 applies – Conviction under Section 109 set aside; conviction under Section 302/149 affirmed – [Para 63].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Death Sentence vs. Life Imprisonment – Split Verdict – Trial Court awarded death sentence; Division Bench delivered split verdict (one acquittal, one confirmation) – Matter referred to Third Judge – Held: The ambush was a "rarest of rare" crime involving the cold-blooded murder of high-ranking police officials – However, the existence of a difference of opinion in the Division Bench (one Judge acquitting) is a weighty factor for commutation – Death sentence commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life – [Paras 66, 67, 68].

Decision: Appeals dismissed with modification in sentence. Conviction affirmed. Death sentence commuted to Life Imprisonment.

Property Law – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff seeking declaration of title and mandatory injunction against defendant alleged to have encroached and constructed house – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must affirmatively prove her own title and also the title of her vendors – Failure to establish identity of property and boundaries fatal to claim [Paras 16–20].

Civil Dispute – Identity of Property – Uncertainty – Plaintiff purchased property without survey or physical delivery – Vendors admitted ignorance of boundaries and survey numbers – Defendant’s construction existed prior to plaintiff’s purchase – Held: Where identity of suit property is doubtful, declaratory relief cannot be granted [Paras 16–20].

Mandatory Injunction – Demolition of Structures – Pre-existing Construction – Defendant constructed house after obtaining municipal permission in 1996, prior to plaintiff’s purchase in 2003 – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to mandatory injunction when construction pre-dates her title and no encroachment proved [Paras 18–20].

Evidence – Admissions – Effect – Plaintiff and her vendor admitted that property sold under sale deed was vacant and different from property on which defendant constructed house – Held: Such admissions destroy plaintiff’s claim of better title and possession [Paras 16–18].

Sale of Immovable Property – Alternative Relief of Refund – Necessity of Cancellation of Sale Deed – Plaintiff sought refund of sale consideration without seeking cancellation of registered sale deed – Held: Without seeking declaration of sale deed as null and void, refund of consideration not maintainable [Paras 21–22].

Civil Procedure – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Compliance – First Appellate Court framed points for determination, discussed evidence and assigned reasons – Held: Substantial compliance with Rule 31 sufficient – No illegality or perversity in appellate judgment [Paras 23–25].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope – High Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or contrary to law – Held: No substantial question of law arises for consideration [Paras 15, 26].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 15/06/2018 in A.S. No. 66 of 2013 confirming judgment and decree dated 06/06/2013 in O.S. No. 316 of 2005 upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to declaration, injunction or refund – Parties to bear their own costs.

Civil Procedure – Appellate Powers – Remand of Case – Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A & 25 CPC – Scope – Appellate court justified in remanding the matter when trial court failed to frame an essential issue going to the root of the case – In suit for specific performance of agricultural land, issue whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist and whether permission of competent authority was required is material – District Judge rightly exercised discretion under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC to direct framing of additional issues and recording of evidence thereon – Such remand does not amount to allowing parties to fill lacunae but ensures fair adjudication [Paras 28–35].

Specific Performance – Agricultural Land – Bar on Sale to Non-Agriculturist – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 – Whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist is a foundational issue affecting enforceability of the agreement of sale – Failure of trial court to frame this issue vitiates adjudication – Appellate court within jurisdiction to remand for trial on that point [Paras 28, 35].

Evidence – Admissibility – Unregistered and Insufficiently Stamped Agreement of Sale – Once document admitted in evidence without objection, admissibility cannot be reopened at appellate stage – However, appellate court justified in directing trial court to examine validity where document is central to the dispute and objection arises from statutory bar – Direction to examine admissibility under Maharashtra Stamp Act held not unwarranted but ancillary [Para 32].

Appellate Practice – Duty of First Appellate Court – While reversing trial court’s decree, appellate court must assign reasons and deal with trial court’s findings – However, where remand is ordered to avoid prejudicing fresh adjudication, omission to record findings is justified – Order of remand not routine but valid when essential factual issues remain untried [Paras 22, 31].

Remand – Conditions and Limitations – Supreme Court precedents in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277, and J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole (2017) 14 SCC 207 explained – Remand permissible only where trial court omitted to try essential issue and evidence is needed – In present case, remand appropriate to decide plaintiff’s status as agriculturist – Appellant compensated by costs of ₹15,000/- for delay caused by respondents’ inaction [Paras 24, 33–36].

Direction – Respondents to pay costs of ₹15,000/- to appellant within fifteen days and before framing of additional issues by the trial court – Trial court to proceed in accordance with directions of the District Judge and decide additional issues independently and expeditiously [Para 36].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Order of remand by District Judge, Nagpur dated 02.09.2022, upheld – Respondents directed to pay ₹15,000/- to appellant within fifteen days – Trial Court to frame additional issues regarding (i) plaintiff’s status as agriculturist, (ii) validity of agreement under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, and decide suit afresh uninfluenced by prior findings.

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Before High Court – Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court – Applicant directly approached High Court without first applying before Sessions Court – Applicant not residing within jurisdiction of Sessions Court where FIR lodged – Held: Petition maintainable under Clause 26(B) of Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. [Paras 2–4]

Freedom of Speech – Social Media Posts – Applicant’s tweets following Pahalgam terror attack criticized Government’s response and Prime Minister’s political rally – FIR alleged tweets incited communal disharmony and defamed the nation – Applicant argued protection under Article 19(1)(a) – Held: Freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions – Tweets posted during a sensitive national crisis and widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan – Cannot claim blanket protection under Article 19(1)(a) [Paras 5–10, 17–18]

Criminal Law – Sedition-like Offences under New Law – Applicant charged under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing repealed Section 124A IPC) – Held: Prima facie assessment of charges not permissible at bail stage – Supreme Court has granted liberty to raise all defences at stage of framing of charge – High Court bound by Article 141 not to interfere [Paras 7–10, 20]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders – Applicant’s SLP challenging rejection of writ petition dismissed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise issues at appropriate stage – Held: High Court bound by Supreme Court’s direction and cannot pre-emptively assess merits of FIR or charges [Paras 11–12, 20]

Investigation – Non-Cooperation by Applicant – Despite specific directions by High Court and opportunity given by Investigating Officer, applicant failed to appear and evaded investigation – Police reports indicated frequent change of residence – Held: Applicant’s conduct shows lack of bona fides and disentitles her to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Court held it is not a fit case for granting relief under Section 482 BNSS – Applicant at liberty to apply for discharge or raise objections at the stage of framing of charge, as directed by Supreme Court [Para 21]

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Attempt to Murder – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – Complainant and wife allegedly assaulted by accused using knife and iron pipes – Injuries confirmed by medical officer but contradictions in witness accounts regarding time, identity, mode of assault, and absence of key eyewitness (son) examined – Prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused properly in FIR – Evidence of independent eyewitness Kantibhai found unreliable due to prior connection with complainant – Doctor’s evidence contradicted claim of indoor treatment and severity of injuries – Investigating Officer admitted no seizure of clothes or FSL report of weapons – No proof of caste identity or use of caste-based slurs – Held: Serious inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and investigative gaps justify trial court's acquittal – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court in Acquittal Appeals – Principles Restated – Appellate Court can reappreciate evidence but must exercise caution and respect double presumption of innocence – Acquittal can be reversed only when judgment suffers from perversity, misreading of evidence or leads to manifest miscarriage of justice – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable one based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 7–8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.11.1999 in Atrocity Case No. 89 of 1996 confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court

Judicial Service Examination – Answer Key Dispute – Preliminary Examination – Petitioner secured 58 marks against qualifying mark of 60 – Objected to final key answers to Questions 86 and 98 – Court held Question 98 answer inconsistent as options A and C were accepted, but B (a part of C) was disallowed – Held: Denial of mark for option B unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to 1 mark [Paras 2(iii), 13, 17]

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Answer Key – Question 86 asked which section reflects vicarious liability – Final answer was Section 34 IPC – Court held Section 34 deals with common intention and not vicarious liability – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 337 – Held: Answer to Question 86 is incorrect – Petitioner entitled to 1 additional mark [Paras 2(v), 14, 17]

Examination Law – Judicial Review of Answer Keys – Though courts usually refrain from evaluating correctness of answers in academic matters, Court held that where questions involve legal reasoning and do not require expert academic insight, interference is permissible – Respondent’s reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, Vikesh Kumar Gupta, and Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi distinguished as those involved subjective or expert-based evaluations – Held: Legal interpretation of IPC provisions falls within court’s domain [Paras 11–12, 14]

Delay in Filing Objection – Procedural Fairness – Petitioner’s objection to Question 86 raised after prescribed deadline – Court held that delay of less than 48 hours cannot defeat right to fair evaluation – Time limit not statutory – Petitioner’s right to challenge incorrect answer key upheld despite procedural lapse [Para 14]

Relief – Grace Marks Awarded – Court awarded 2 grace marks for two disputed questions – Held: Petitioner to be treated as qualified for main examination – Respondent directed to allow petitioner to pay fees and appear for main written exam on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 – Relief limited to petitioner alone to avoid disturbance of overall selection process [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: Petition allowed – Two marks awarded to petitioner – Respondent directed to permit him to appear for main written examination.