Endorsement Requirement Can’t Apply Retrospectively: Karnataka HC Quashes GST Demand Based on Prospective SEZ Rules

HomeGSTEndorsement Requirement Can’t Apply Retrospectively: Karnataka HC Quashes GST Demand Based on...

Endorsement Requirement Can’t Apply Retrospectively: Karnataka HC Quashes GST Demand Based on Prospective SEZ Rules

GST Top Stories

Published on

17/12/2025

By Mariya Paliwala

Endorsement Requirement Can’t Apply Retrospectively: Karnataka HC Quashes GST Demand Based on Prospective SEZ Rules

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand raised for the period July 2017 to March 2018, holding that amended Special Economic Zone(SEZ) Rules and a subsequent circular cannot be applied retrospectively. The tax authorities acted without jurisdiction by relying on requirements that came into force after the relevant tax…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Endorsement Requirement

Endorsement Requirement Can’t Apply Retrospectively: Karnataka HC Quashes GST Demand Based on Prospective SEZ Rules

Membership Required

Latest articles

Paytm Payments Bank Licence Cancelled: What It Means for Account Holders and Their Money?

Personal Inspection & Agriculture Dept. Input Not Enough for Technical Micronutrient Classification: Karnataka High Court Faults Commissioner’s Approach

NFRA Can Debar Audit Firms for 10 Years, Impose Rs. 5 Crore Penalty

CENVAT Credit Use During Default Is Invalid: Calcutta High Court Upholds Cash Duty Demand U/R 8(3A), Allows Credit Restoration

More like this

Paytm Payments Bank Licence Cancelled: What It Means for Account Holders and Their Money?

Personal Inspection & Agriculture Dept. Input Not Enough for Technical Micronutrient Classification: Karnataka High Court Faults Commissioner’s Approach

NFRA Can Debar Audit Firms for 10 Years, Impose Rs. 5 Crore Penalty

About us

Company

Categories