https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418858 Repeated GST summons and alleged coercive recovery prompted interim judicial directions requiring the respondents to file an affidavit explaining the number and purpose of summons, the progress of the investigation, and the expected completion timeline. The Court also directed that 7 days' clear notice be given before any coercive recovery step. On the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the MGST Act, 2017, notice was directed to the Attorney General for India and the Advocate General for Maharashtra. No final determination on the merits was made. en-us Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Apr 2025 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418858 Repeated GST summons and alleged coercive recovery prompted interim judicial directions requiring the respondents to file an affidavit explaining the number and purpose of summons, the progress of the investigation, and the expected completion timeline. The Court also directed that 7 days' clear notice be given before any coercive recovery step. On the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the MGST Act, 2017, notice was directed to the Attorney General for India and the Advocate General for Maharashtra. No final determination on the merits was made. Case-Laws GST Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418858