https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268687 In SEZ works-contract transactions, endorsement by Customs or SEZ authorities on the running invoice under rule 42(2A) of the Gujarat VAT Rules was treated as a procedural requirement, not a condition precedent, because such endorsement was impracticable after goods had entered the SEZ and were used in the work; endorsement on the purchase bills was accepted as sufficient compliance. The SEZ exemption framework under section 21 was treated as having overriding effect, so State VAT could not be levied on transactions within the SEZ. As the basic tax levy failed, interest and penalty also could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268687 In SEZ works-contract transactions, endorsement by Customs or SEZ authorities on the running invoice under rule 42(2A) of the Gujarat VAT Rules was treated as a procedural requirement, not a condition precedent, because such endorsement was impracticable after goods had entered the SEZ and were used in the work; endorsement on the purchase bills was accepted as sufficient compliance. The SEZ exemption framework under section 21 was treated as having overriding effect, so State VAT could not be levied on transactions within the SEZ. As the basic tax levy failed, interest and penalty also could not be sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268687