{"id":75329,"date":"2026-03-31T08:27:10","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T08:27:10","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2026-03-31T08:27:10","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T08:27:10","slug":"retrospective-gst-on-sez-insurance-supplies-stayed-as-court-finds-arguable-jurisdictional-challenge-to-amendment-based-demand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=75329","title":{"rendered":"Retrospective GST on SEZ insurance supplies stayed as Court finds arguable jurisdictional challenge to amendment-based demand."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Retrospective GST on SEZ insurance supplies stayed as Court finds arguable jurisdictional challenge to amendment-based demand.<br \/>Case-Laws<br \/>GST<br \/>Retrospective GST demand on insurance supplies to SEZ units raised a prima facie jurisdictional issue, because the amendment inserting the words &#8220;for authorised operations&#8221; could not, at this stage, be used to tax past supplies that had been treated as zero-rated. The Court found the challenge arguable on the competence to levy tax retrospectively for the period before 1 October 2023 and noted the statutory definition of &#8220;recipient&#8221; under the CGST Act, observing that the SEZ units had subscribed to the policies and paid the consideration. Pending final hearing, the impugned orders were stayed.<br \/> TMI Updates &#8211; Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts <\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/highlights?id=98261\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Retrospective GST on SEZ insurance supplies stayed as Court finds arguable jurisdictional challenge to amendment-based demand.Case-LawsGSTRetrospective GST demand on insurance supplies to SEZ units raised a prima facie jurisdictional issue, because the&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"close","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75329","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=75329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75329\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=75329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=75329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=75329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}