https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437363 A Vigilance and Enforcement Department inspection and alert note were upheld as a lawful interdepartmental transmission for revenue protection, and the tax authorities could act on that information despite no requisition under Section 72(2). However, scrutiny notices under Rule 99(1) read with Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act were quashed because the issuing officer was not shown to be the Proper Officer, meaning the Chief Commissioner or an officer validly assigned that function. The defect was treated as curable by fresh notices from the competent authority, so the notices were set aside with liberty to reissue them in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437363 A Vigilance and Enforcement Department inspection and alert note were upheld as a lawful interdepartmental transmission for revenue protection, and the tax authorities could act on that information despite no requisition under Section 72(2). However, scrutiny notices under Rule 99(1) read with Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act were quashed because the issuing officer was not shown to be the Proper Officer, meaning the Chief Commissioner or an officer validly assigned that function. The defect was treated as curable by fresh notices from the competent authority, so the notices were set aside with liberty to reissue them in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437363