https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783900 A demand for the July 2017 to March 2018 tax period could not be upheld on the basis of amended Rule 30(4) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 or the circular dated 12.09.2019, because both operated prospectively and came into force after the relevant period. The demand was therefore treated as resting on an inapplicable legal basis and as without jurisdiction. The availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action lacked jurisdiction. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783900 A demand for the July 2017 to March 2018 tax period could not be upheld on the basis of amended Rule 30(4) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 or the circular dated 12.09.2019, because both operated prospectively and came into force after the relevant period. The demand was therefore treated as resting on an inapplicable legal basis and as without jurisdiction. The availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action lacked jurisdiction. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783900