Condonation of Delay denied: communication lapses and corporate restructuring found insufficient; prolonged inaction and lack of bona fides led to ref...
Export Support intervention INSIGHT launched to provide non financial capacity building, trade intelligence and pilot support with defined funding and...
Retrospective GST demand on insurance supplies to SEZ units raised a prima facie jurisdictional issue, because the amendment inserting the words "for authorised operations" could not, at this stage, be used to tax past supplies that had been treated as zero-rated. The Court found the challenge arguable on the competence to levy tax retrospectively for the period before 1 October 2023 and noted the statutory definition of "recipient" under the CGST Act, observing that the SEZ units had subscribed to the policies and paid the consideration. Pending final hearing, the impugned orders were stayed.
Retrospective GST demand on insurance supplies to SEZ units raised a prima facie jurisdictional issue, because the amendment inserting the words "for authorised operations" could not, at this stage, be used to tax past supplies that had been treated as zero-rated. The Court found the challenge arguable on the competence to levy tax retrospectively for the period before 1 October 2023 and noted the statutory definition of "recipient" under the CGST Act, observing that the SEZ units had subscribed to the policies and paid the consideration. Pending final hearing, the impugned orders were stayed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
