Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Commissionerate

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 84Decided 20 Jan 2025
Civil Appeal No. 5642 of 2009, with connected Civil Appeal Nos. 8025-27 of 2010, 5686 of 2014, 9838 of 2017, 5516 of 2019, and 10890 of 2024
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Pankaj Mithal

Background

State-run oil companies (Bharat Petroleum, Indian Oil, and Hindustan Petroleum) had an arrangement, entered at the Government's direction, to sell petroleum products to each other at a lower "Import Parity Price" so as to ensure smooth nationwide supply. The Excise Department issued show-cause notices years later alleging this arrangement understated the products' value for excise duty purposes, and invoked the extended five-year limitation period (instead of the usual one year) to raise the demand, claiming the arrangement had been suppressed from tax authorities.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed that the price under the inter-company arrangement was not the "sole consideration" for the sale, since the deal served a supply-coordination purpose beyond pure pricing. However, it held that the extended five-year limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act can only be invoked where there is actual fraud, collusion, or wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and here, the Revenue made no such allegation, only that the arrangement was not disclosed. Since the arrangement was made at the Government's own behest, the demand against Bharat Petroleum was time-barred and was set aside; the connected appeals were sent back to the Tribunal to be decided afresh in light of this ruling.

Lesson Learnt

Tax and excise authorities cannot invoke an extended limitation period to raise old demands unless they can show actual fraud or deliberate concealment with intent to evade duty: an arrangement made openly, even if not proactively disclosed, does not by itself amount to suppression.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Commissionerate – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware