1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Taxpayer Must Comply with GST Summons, Challenging Officer's Notice Rejected as Per Statutory Procedure</h1> HC upheld summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, directing petitioner to appear before designated officer on specified date. Court limited inquiry to CGST ... Challenge to summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 directing the petitioner through its proprietor to tender oral evidence - HELD THAT:- Let the petitioner appear before the designated officer on 23 January 2024 at 2.30 p.m. Petition disposed off. In the judgment from the Bombay High Court, the petitioner challenged a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, which required the petitioner to provide oral evidence. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Abhishek Rastogi, indicated the petitioner's willingness to comply with the summons. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the designated officer on January 23, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. The court emphasized that the inquiry should be limited to the provisions of the CGST Act, specifically as outlined in sub-section (1) of Section 70. The court concluded that further adjudication of the petition was unnecessary and expressly left all contentions of the parties open, disposing of the petition without costs.