Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC quashed a notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on procedural grounds. The notice was improperly addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent-bank at Gurugram rather than to the petitioner directly. The petitioner contended that no bank account existed at Gurugram, with the relevant account being at Mulund Branch, and denied owing any amount to the defaulter allegedly liable for Rs. 30.19 crores GST dues. The HC held that Section 79 mandates service of notice upon the person from whom money is due to enable them to prove no liability exists. Since no notice was served upon the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 9 July 2024 was set aside and the petition was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
