https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783900 The dominant issue was whether the tax authority could confirm demand for July 2017-March 2018 by relying on a later notification amending Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules and a subsequent circular. The HC held that both the amended rule (effective 21.09.2018) and the circular (dated 12.09.2019) were prospective and could not be applied to the earlier tax period; applying them was contrary to the governing rules and materials and amounted to action without jurisdiction or authority of law. Consequently, despite an appellate remedy under s.107 KGST Act, the HC exercised writ jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order, allowing the petition. 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 The dominant issue was whether the tax authority could confirm demand for July 2017-March 2018 by relying on a later notification amending Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules and a subsequent circular. The HC held that both the amended rule (effective 21.09.2018) and the circular (dated 12.09.2019) were prospective and could not be applied to the earlier tax period; applying them was contrary to the governing rules and materials and amounted to action without jurisdiction or authority of law. Consequently, despite an appellate remedy under s.107 KGST Act, the HC exercised writ jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order, allowing the petition. Case-Laws GST Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783900