Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Admissibility of electronic evidence controls valuation and penalty exposure; non compliant e records and statements nullify revaluation and penalties...
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 
