https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419052 The HC addressed a dispute where the petitioner supplied goods to BHEL under GST exemption for export supplies. When BHEL failed to export within the mandatory 90-day period, tax authorities demanded differential tax, interest, and penalties from the petitioner. The petitioner contended that BHEL (recipient) should bear responsibility for the tax liability due to export delays, not the supplier. After making partial payments, the petitioner sought judicial intervention against further coercive actions. The court granted interim protection against coercive measures pending resolution, allowed time for counter-affidavits, and scheduled further hearings. en-us Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2025 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419052 The HC addressed a dispute where the petitioner supplied goods to BHEL under GST exemption for export supplies. When BHEL failed to export within the mandatory 90-day period, tax authorities demanded differential tax, interest, and penalties from the petitioner. The petitioner contended that BHEL (recipient) should bear responsibility for the tax liability due to export delays, not the supplier. After making partial payments, the petitioner sought judicial intervention against further coercive actions. The court granted interim protection against coercive measures pending resolution, allowed time for counter-affidavits, and scheduled further hearings. Case-Laws GST Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419052