https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88037 HC held that the petitioner firm, registered in two different states (U.P. and M.P.), requires further investigation to determine whether they constitute the same legal entity under GST law. The court found procedural irregularities in the ex-parte appeal, specifically the lack of proper notice service to the petitioner. Consequently, the HC set aside the previous orders, including the show cause notice and subsequent administrative actions, and restored the original appeal, granting the petitioner an opportunity to defend against the GST appeal. The petition was partially allowed, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper legal notification. en-us Sat, 03 May 2025 08:34:49 +0530 Sat, 03 May 2025 08:34:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88037 HC held that the petitioner firm, registered in two different states (U.P. and M.P.), requires further investigation to determine whether they constitute the same legal entity under GST law. The court found procedural irregularities in the ex-parte appeal, specifically the lack of proper notice service to the petitioner. Consequently, the HC set aside the previous orders, including the show cause notice and subsequent administrative actions, and restored the original appeal, granting the petitioner an opportunity to defend against the GST appeal. The petition was partially allowed, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper legal notification. Highlights GST Sat, 03 May 2025 08:34:49 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88037