<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (4) TMI 420 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789351</link>
    <description>The amended definition of zero-rated supply in the IGST Act, inserting the words &quot;for authorized operations&quot; from 1 October 2023, could not govern transactions from March 2020 to June 2023. The Court therefore held that the earlier remand direction requiring examination of whether the services were for authorized operations was not sustainable for the pre-amendment period and deleted that direction. Liberty was preserved for the respondent to raise the plea before the adjudicating authority if advised. The review was thus allowed only to the limited extent of modifying the remand order, applying the principle that an amended statutory requirement does not apply retrospectively unless clearly provided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:48:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 420 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789351</link>
      <description>The amended definition of zero-rated supply in the IGST Act, inserting the words &quot;for authorized operations&quot; from 1 October 2023, could not govern transactions from March 2020 to June 2023. The Court therefore held that the earlier remand direction requiring examination of whether the services were for authorized operations was not sustainable for the pre-amendment period and deleted that direction. Liberty was preserved for the respondent to raise the plea before the adjudicating authority if advised. The review was thus allowed only to the limited extent of modifying the remand order, applying the principle that an amended statutory requirement does not apply retrospectively unless clearly provided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>