https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83179 The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, specifically the failure to submit valid proof of payment of the mandatory pre-deposit and the absence of valid documents establishing the petitioner's authority as an authorized signatory under the Companies Act. However, the court found that the respondent erred in not verifying the petitioner's authorization on the GSTN portal. Citing a precedent case, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process and verifying relevant facts before rendering a decision. en-us Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:38:49 +0530 Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:38:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83179 The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, specifically the failure to submit valid proof of payment of the mandatory pre-deposit and the absence of valid documents establishing the petitioner's authority as an authorized signatory under the Companies Act. However, the court found that the respondent erred in not verifying the petitioner's authorization on the GSTN portal. Citing a precedent case, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process and verifying relevant facts before rendering a decision. Highlights GST Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:38:49 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83179