https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757386 Where a statutory appellate remedy under the Bihar GST law was available, the writ court declined to intervene because the challenge to the registration cancellation was filed well beyond the extended limitation period and no due diligence was shown. The Court also held that a notice irregularity, such as mentioning a hearing date earlier than the notice date, did not justify interference where receipt of notice was undisputed, no reply was filed, and no factual error in the cancellation ground was demonstrated. The writ petition was therefore rejected and no relief was granted. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2025 15:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757386 Where a statutory appellate remedy under the Bihar GST law was available, the writ court declined to intervene because the challenge to the registration cancellation was filed well beyond the extended limitation period and no due diligence was shown. The Court also held that a notice irregularity, such as mentioning a hearing date earlier than the notice date, did not justify interference where receipt of notice was undisputed, no reply was filed, and no factual error in the cancellation ground was demonstrated. The writ petition was therefore rejected and no relief was granted. Case-Laws GST Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757386