Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
The HC quashed the impugned Recovery Notice dated 15.09.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent under s.79(1)(c)(i) of the respective GST enactments, holding that the alleged arrears had been largely discharged by the Petitioner through payments between 21.10.2023 and 11.03.2024 (and subsequently), leaving no subsisting liability as asserted in the notice; the Court noted earlier orders quantifying liabilities and a small additional interest demand for a prior period. The 1st Respondent was granted liberty to issue a fresh recovery notice under s.79(1)(c)(i) if bona fide other arrears remain outstanding. Petition stands disposed of.
The HC quashed the impugned Recovery Notice dated 15.09.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent under s.79(1)(c)(i) of the respective GST enactments, holding that the alleged arrears had been largely discharged by the Petitioner through payments between 21.10.2023 and 11.03.2024 (and subsequently), leaving no subsisting liability as asserted in the notice; the Court noted earlier orders quantifying liabilities and a small additional interest demand for a prior period. The 1st Respondent was granted liberty to issue a fresh recovery notice under s.79(1)(c)(i) if bona fide other arrears remain outstanding. Petition stands disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.