https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367784 The court quashed the notice issued by the Deputy Director of GST Intelligence for service tax recovery, emphasizing that coercive recovery actions could only occur after proper adjudication under the Finance Act, 1994. The court held that Section 87 could only be invoked post-adjudication, ruling in favor of the petitioner and allowing retention of the deposited amount until adjudication. The impugned notice was set aside, with the Revenue permitted to retain the already received amount pending adjudication of the show cause notice, while reserving the right to invoke Section 73C if necessary. en-us Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Feb 2019 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367784 The court quashed the notice issued by the Deputy Director of GST Intelligence for service tax recovery, emphasizing that coercive recovery actions could only occur after proper adjudication under the Finance Act, 1994. The court held that Section 87 could only be invoked post-adjudication, ruling in favor of the petitioner and allowing retention of the deposited amount until adjudication. The impugned notice was set aside, with the Revenue permitted to retain the already received amount pending adjudication of the show cause notice, while reserving the right to invoke Section 73C if necessary. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367784