https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769391 Allahabad HC considered an IGST refund-related demand and held that the State tax authority's jurisdiction objection could not be accepted because officers appointed under the State GST framework may act as proper officers for IGST matters in the circumstances contemplated by the statute and notifications. It also found the adjudication procedurally unsustainable because the notice fixed the reply and hearing on the same date, no fresh notice was issued before the later order, and the petitioner's response was not properly considered. The Court further held that the applicability of Rule 96B to the prior assessment period and the effect of the circular raised legal issues that had not been examined and required fresh determination. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for de novo adjudication. en-us Fri, 18 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Apr 2025 13:17:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769391 Allahabad HC considered an IGST refund-related demand and held that the State tax authority's jurisdiction objection could not be accepted because officers appointed under the State GST framework may act as proper officers for IGST matters in the circumstances contemplated by the statute and notifications. It also found the adjudication procedurally unsustainable because the notice fixed the reply and hearing on the same date, no fresh notice was issued before the later order, and the petitioner's response was not properly considered. The Court further held that the applicability of Rule 96B to the prior assessment period and the effect of the circular raised legal issues that had not been examined and required fresh determination. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for de novo adjudication. Case-Laws GST Fri, 18 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769391