https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770185 HC upheld the State Authority's order under Section 74(9) of the BGST Act, rejecting the petitioner's challenge based on alleged parallel proceedings by the Central Agency (DGGI) and violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST/BGST Act. The court held there was no pending proceeding on the same subject matter with the Central Agency when the impugned order was passed, which was based on scrutiny under Section 61(1) and Rule 99(1). The dealer had failed to respond to notices and to reverse ineligible ITC, and did not dispute these facts. HC found due compliance with principles of natural justice and no jurisdictional error. Writ application dismissed. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770185 HC upheld the State Authority's order under Section 74(9) of the BGST Act, rejecting the petitioner's challenge based on alleged parallel proceedings by the Central Agency (DGGI) and violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST/BGST Act. The court held there was no pending proceeding on the same subject matter with the Central Agency when the impugned order was passed, which was based on scrutiny under Section 61(1) and Rule 99(1). The dealer had failed to respond to notices and to reverse ineligible ITC, and did not dispute these facts. HC found due compliance with principles of natural justice and no jurisdictional error. Writ application dismissed. Case-Laws GST Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770185