https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763864 The HP HC examined whether a notification dated 19.10.2024 and corrigendum dated 21.11.2024 for appointing Commercial Tax Department officers with 25 years service as Technical Members (State) in GST Appellate Tribunal complied with Section 110 of CGST Act, 2017. The court found the state government's proposal for relaxation under the proviso appeared based on incorrect facts, leading to improper GST Council recommendations. Finding a prima facie case for the petitioner, the court allowed application scrutiny but prohibited final decisions until further orders. Matter listed for 30.12.2024. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jul 2025 14:59:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763864 The HP HC examined whether a notification dated 19.10.2024 and corrigendum dated 21.11.2024 for appointing Commercial Tax Department officers with 25 years service as Technical Members (State) in GST Appellate Tribunal complied with Section 110 of CGST Act, 2017. The court found the state government's proposal for relaxation under the proviso appeared based on incorrect facts, leading to improper GST Council recommendations. Finding a prima facie case for the petitioner, the court allowed application scrutiny but prohibited final decisions until further orders. Matter listed for 30.12.2024. Case-Laws GST Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763864