https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768575 HC found that while initial notice uploading was procedurally questionable, subsequent reminder on 14.02.2024 mitigated technical irregularities. However, the key ruling centered on non-compliance with Section 75(6) of U.P.G.S.T. Act, where the order dated 11.04.2024 lacked substantive reasoning. Consequently, HC quashed the order, remanded the matter, and granted petitioner three weeks to file response, mandating a fresh reasoned order. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2025 10:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768575 HC found that while initial notice uploading was procedurally questionable, subsequent reminder on 14.02.2024 mitigated technical irregularities. However, the key ruling centered on non-compliance with Section 75(6) of U.P.G.S.T. Act, where the order dated 11.04.2024 lacked substantive reasoning. Consequently, HC quashed the order, remanded the matter, and granted petitioner three weeks to file response, mandating a fresh reasoned order. Case-Laws GST Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768575