https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779651 The Bombay High Court held that the validating amendments inserting and enforcing a 10% pre-deposit requirement under Section 26(6A), (6B) and (6C) were constitutionally unsustainable because, after the GST regime came into force, the State lacked legislative competence to sustain the amendment in the manner attempted. Although retrospective curative legislation is permissible in principle, it cannot revive a provision once the underlying legislative authority has been displaced. As the Supreme Court had struck down the validating foundation, the basis for demanding the 10% pre-deposit disappeared and the consequential notices could not survive; the challenge succeeded and the notices were quashed. en-us Thu, 29 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:44:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779651 The Bombay High Court held that the validating amendments inserting and enforcing a 10% pre-deposit requirement under Section 26(6A), (6B) and (6C) were constitutionally unsustainable because, after the GST regime came into force, the State lacked legislative competence to sustain the amendment in the manner attempted. Although retrospective curative legislation is permissible in principle, it cannot revive a provision once the underlying legislative authority has been displaced. As the Supreme Court had struck down the validating foundation, the basis for demanding the 10% pre-deposit disappeared and the consequential notices could not survive; the challenge succeeded and the notices were quashed. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Thu, 29 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779651