https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423924 The HC ruled on a challenge to an order passed under Section 74(9) of the State GST Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue. Despite the respondent's objection regarding alternative remedies, the court held that questions of jurisdiction warranted judicial review through writ jurisdiction. The court found the petitioner established a prima facie case regarding the officer's jurisdiction under the State GST Act. A conditional stay was granted, requiring the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demanded amount within ten days to prevent coercive recovery actions. The matter was scheduled for final hearing after ten weeks. en-us Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423924 The HC ruled on a challenge to an order passed under Section 74(9) of the State GST Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue. Despite the respondent's objection regarding alternative remedies, the court held that questions of jurisdiction warranted judicial review through writ jurisdiction. The court found the petitioner established a prima facie case regarding the officer's jurisdiction under the State GST Act. A conditional stay was granted, requiring the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demanded amount within ten days to prevent coercive recovery actions. The matter was scheduled for final hearing after ten weeks. Case-Laws GST Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423924