TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 8362 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 8360 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 6771 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 14901 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 6891 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 6978 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 7687 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 14865 Of 2025, Writ Petition (L) No. 12881 Of 2025 And Writ Petition (L) No. 7000 Of 2026. - -<br>GST<br>G.S. KULKARNI & FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prithwiraj Choudhari, Mr. Aansh Desai i/b Pythogoras Legal. For the Respondent in WP/7806/2025: Mr. Yogendra prasad Ramdin Mishra with Ms. Niyati Mankad, Ms. Priyanka Singh. For the Respondent in WP/14685/2025: Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar with Ms. Niyati Mankad, Ms. Priyanka Singh. For the Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so as to tax the insurance policies subscribed from the petitioners by the SEZ units. This demand is premised on the basis that, by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021, as notified by the Central Government under a notification dated 27 July 2023, the appointed day as fixed was 1 October 2023 for the amendment to Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 to be brought into force. 3. It needs to be stated that by virtue of Section 123 of the Finance Act, 2021, an amendment was sought to be made to Section 16 of the IGST Act, when in clause (b) of sub-section (1), after the words "supply of goods or services or both," the words "for authorised operations" were inserted. The relevant extract of the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act prior to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to have misconstrued the notification bringing the amendment into force as a clarification issued by the Ministry. The relevant observations are required to be noted which read thus:- "The clarification, issued through Notification No. 27/2023-Central Tax dated 31.07.2023 and effective from 01.10.2023, established that such services must be utilized solely for the authorized operations of SEZ." 5. It is the petitioner's case that there is no dispute that the insurance services provided by the petitioners/insurance companies to SEZ units, which were otherwise the recipients of such services, qualified as 'zero-rated' supplies under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, and have been treated as such by the department prior to the ame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Encl: Annexure - List of 66 services" (emphasis supplied) 6. It is the petitioners case that, up to 30 September 2023, there was no dispute whatsoever regarding the supply being treated as a "zero-rated supply," and the same was accepted by the Department. The petitioners contend that the amendment in question must be interpreted to operate prospectively, considering well-established principles governing the interpretation of taxing statutes, such provisions cannot be construed to have a retrospective effect. It is hence their submission that the supplies undertaken during the period from 01 July 2017 (when the GST regime was introduced) up to 30 September 2023 cannot be subjected to tax on retrospective basis, as is sought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the respondents, have supported the impugned orders. Mr. Mishra contended that this is a clear case where the policies have been issued for the benefit of the employees, and therefore, the petitioners cannot contend otherwise. He further submitted that, particularly in view of the amendment, such supply of services cannot be regarded as supply to the SEZ units, per se; rather it should be treated as a supply between the petitioners/ insurance companies and its employees, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of such services. Accordingly, it is submitted that the designated officer was correct in issuing the show cause notice and passing the impugned order for recovery of tax. 11. Prima-facie, we find much substance in the contenti....