https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411495 Exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the Court did not examine the merits of the statutory tax notice. It treated the petitioner's request for consideration of a representation seeking instalment facility to clear tax dues, in light of curtailed operations during the pandemic, as fair and directed the respondent to decide that representation on its own merits. The decision was required to be issued as a speaking order within two weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. en-us Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411495 Exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the Court did not examine the merits of the statutory tax notice. It treated the petitioner's request for consideration of a representation seeking instalment facility to clear tax dues, in light of curtailed operations during the pandemic, as fair and directed the respondent to decide that representation on its own merits. The decision was required to be issued as a speaking order within two weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. Case-Laws GST Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411495