https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427004 The court dismissed both cases, W.P.No.28468 of 2021 and W.P.No.28080 of 2021, along with related petitions, without costs. In the first case, jurisdictional inconvenience was acknowledged, but as there was no challenge to jurisdiction assumption, the court did not comment further on officer location. The petitioner was allowed to request a specific location for proceedings. In the second case, the challenge to jurisdiction under the CGST Act, 2017 was rejected, and the investigation was permitted to proceed according to the law. The court declined to quash the show cause notice in the third case, allowing the petitioner to establish the applicability of a previous decision. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427004 The court dismissed both cases, W.P.No.28468 of 2021 and W.P.No.28080 of 2021, along with related petitions, without costs. In the first case, jurisdictional inconvenience was acknowledged, but as there was no challenge to jurisdiction assumption, the court did not comment further on officer location. The petitioner was allowed to request a specific location for proceedings. In the second case, the challenge to jurisdiction under the CGST Act, 2017 was rejected, and the investigation was permitted to proceed according to the law. The court declined to quash the show cause notice in the third case, allowing the petitioner to establish the applicability of a previous decision. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427004