https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761795 The Bombay HC quashed the dismissal of petitioner's appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal citing non-payment of mandatory 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of CGST Act, 2017 and lack of authorization documents under Companies Act, 1956. The HC found that the authorized signatory's credentials were verifiable on the GSTN portal, and the respondent failed to conduct proper verification. Following precedent from TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS case, the court set aside the impugned order and directed de novo consideration by the appellate authority. en-us Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 17:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761795 The Bombay HC quashed the dismissal of petitioner's appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal citing non-payment of mandatory 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of CGST Act, 2017 and lack of authorization documents under Companies Act, 1956. The HC found that the authorized signatory's credentials were verifiable on the GSTN portal, and the respondent failed to conduct proper verification. Following precedent from TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS case, the court set aside the impugned order and directed de novo consideration by the appellate authority. Case-Laws GST Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761795