https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398863 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the necessity of a notice with specified particulars before initiating an investigation under Rule 129(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court restricted challenges to the inadequacy of the notice at the current stage, deferring broader issues for later proceedings after the submission of an adverse report by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering. The next hearing was scheduled for September 30, 2020, allowing the respondents time to address the specific concerns raised by the petitioner regarding compliance with the rules. en-us Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:06:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398863 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the necessity of a notice with specified particulars before initiating an investigation under Rule 129(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court restricted challenges to the inadequacy of the notice at the current stage, deferring broader issues for later proceedings after the submission of an adverse report by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering. The next hearing was scheduled for September 30, 2020, allowing the respondents time to address the specific concerns raised by the petitioner regarding compliance with the rules. Case-Laws GST Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398863