We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
<h1>Gujarat HC rules GST amendment prospective, dismisses petition as infructuous.</h1> The Gujarat HC disposed of a petition challenging a GST rule amendment, ruling it to be prospective and rendering the grievance against its retrospective ... Retrospective operation of subordinate legislation - Rule 96(10)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Substitution of rule by notification - Prospective application of statutory rule - Infructuousness of challengeRetrospective operation of subordinate legislation - Rule 96(10)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Substitution of rule by notification - Prospective application of statutory rule - Infructuousness of challenge - Challenge to the retrospective effect given to rule 96(10)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT: - The petitioner contested the retrospective operation of sub rule (10)(b) of rule 96. Subsequent notifications dated 9.10.2018 effected a substitution of sub rule (10), removing the retrospective effect and making the provision prospective. The Court observed that because the alleged grievance related solely to the retrospective application and that effect has been withdrawn by the legislative notifications, there remains no live controversy for adjudication. Consequently the petition has become infructuous and requires disposal.Petition dismissed as infructuous; notice discharged and no order as to costs.Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the retrospective effect of rule 96(10)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was disposed of as infructuous after the retrospective effect was removed by subsequent notifications; notice discharged with no order as to costs. The Gujarat High Court disposed of the petition challenging rule 96 (10) (b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 as the rule was amended to be applicable prospectively, making the grievance against its retrospective effect irrelevant. The petition was deemed infructuous and notice was discharged with no costs.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
