https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768425 The HC dismissed the writ petition due to available statutory appellate remedy under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. However, the court recognized post-facto approval dated 6th June, 2017 as binding, following precedent in M/S. RAJLAXMI CONSTRUCTION case. The court ordered PWD authorities to refund Rs.65.28 lakhs GST amount and pay Rs.84,84,035/- service tax to appellant. Penalties imposed under various sections were set aside, with the court finding administrative confusion and delays as mitigating factors. The appeal was ultimately allowed with state authorities' orders set aside. en-us Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jun 2025 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768425 The HC dismissed the writ petition due to available statutory appellate remedy under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. However, the court recognized post-facto approval dated 6th June, 2017 as binding, following precedent in M/S. RAJLAXMI CONSTRUCTION case. The court ordered PWD authorities to refund Rs.65.28 lakhs GST amount and pay Rs.84,84,035/- service tax to appellant. Penalties imposed under various sections were set aside, with the court finding administrative confusion and delays as mitigating factors. The appeal was ultimately allowed with state authorities' orders set aside. Case-Laws GST Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768425